The PlayStation 3 Slim is Great, But...

[Rob Williams]

From our front-page news:

Where Sony's PlayStation 3 is concerned... there's one aspect that's a little interesting. To understand it better, take a look at Microsoft's Xbox 360. Since that console's launch, there have been multiple revisions made, and to my knowledge, all of them are for the better - despite price drops over the years. The PlayStation 3 didn't experience the same transformation, sadly, and as a result, the original 60GB model is still a hot commodity.

So what on earth would cause someone to seek out that older model rather than purchase a newer, and probably more affordable system? Simple: Backwards Compatibility. One of the absolute best features of the PS3 (in my opinion) is the ability to play both PlayStation One and 2 games, partly in thanks to the fact that I own near 100 games from each of those consoles.

If you had a massive entertainment center, then sure, adding a PlayStation 2 is not really a problem. But if your limited in space, putting another console on the stand might not be an option. Plus... having everything confined to one console is simply more convenient. I won't even touch on the fact that the PS3 has the ability to upscale... and it does a pretty good job of it.

There's also another feature missing on the most-recent Slim release... the ability to install Linux. Of course, that reason will effect a lot less than the backwards compatibility, but it's still a notable issue. Either way, I consider the backwards compatibility to be rather important, and it's for that reason that I really, really hope that my launch PS3 doesn't die anytime soon.

At least on eBay you can see what they are actually selling for." So what are they selling for? "It looks like the 60GB are going for about $250 to $270. Closer to retail, but nothing dramatic yet." You can look at that number two ways: the $600 systems have dropped in value dramatically, or that people are willing to pay nearly the going retail price for a three year-old system.

Source: Ars Technica​

 

[Kougar]

Last I saw the PS2 was still outselling the PS3 by a very wide margin. I still have to wonder how Sony could equate ~$15 in chips to be worth the potential in lost sales, considering the PS2 is such a hit exactly for it's massive, unparalleled library of games.

The Sony site claims the PS2 has over 1,800 titles, and supposedly the original Xbox has 950... So combine all of the Xbox AND the Xbox 360 games currently on the market, the PS2 still has over 200 more under its belt.

I wonder if Sony made the decision to remove backwards compatibility not just to save a few dollars off the production cost of their new console, but to also not deter from their unusually strong PS2 sales. If users can't get full backwards compatibility from the PS3, they're going to just have to buy another PS2 when theirs breaks unless they want to shelve the dozens, (Or like Rob) hundreds of games in their collection... and most users simply aren't going to want to toss all those games away.

 

[Rob Williams]

I wonder if Sony made the decision to remove backwards compatibility not just to save a few dollars off the production cost of their new console, but to also not deter from their unusually strong PS2 sales.

If it's the loss of PS2 sales Sony is worried about, then they should just release a more-expensive version of the PS3 that includes the hardware required for the emulation. Like you said, the chips can't be more than $15, but add the feature to the PS3, along with some other perks, and you'd imagine Sony would come out even further ahead than off a PS2 sale (although I'm not sure how much Sony clears off of one of these).

At least the PS2 is still being sold though for those who want it. That plays PS1 games as well, so overall, Sony's solution for playing older games is still far superior to Microsoft's.

 

[Kougar]

Well, I suppose they could get away with it. Backwards compatibility is such a mess with the PS3... some work 100%, some are extremely hit & miss, and others just don't work at all. But I'm sure they make a huge profit off of every new PS2 sold... this is Sony we're talking about, they wouldn't give up that revenue stream.

 

[Rebeca]

We still have the PS2, so we wouldn't mind buying the PS3 Slim, especially with its new price tag. Does installing linux on the PS3 make it any better? (I like linux, but I've never installed it in any of our video game consoles.)

 

[Rob Williams]

But I'm sure they make a huge profit off of every new PS2 sold... this is Sony we're talking about, they wouldn't give up that revenue stream.

You're right... and it sucks for the end-consumer (as usual). Oh well.

We still have the PS2, so we wouldn't mind buying the PS3 Slim, especially with its new price tag. Does installing linux on the PS3 make it any better? (I like linux, but I've never installed it in any of our video game consoles.)

Well, Linux cannot be installed on the Slim... just the older versions of the console. To be honest though, there isn't much use, due to the lack of applications that are optimized to run on the Cell processor. It's fun for experimentation, but aside from getting a few game emulators running, there wasn't much to do I found. Because of the differences of architectures between Cell and what we use for our PC, performance in general for most things was slow, so it really is for specific audiences only, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[gibbersome]

Well, I suppose they could get away with it. Backwards compatibility is such a mess with the PS3... some work 100%, some are extremely hit & miss, and others just don't work at all. But I'm sure they make a huge profit off of every new PS2 sold... this is Sony we're talking about, they wouldn't give up that revenue stream.

Exactly, and don't forget that the slim PS3 is still being sold at a loss vs manufacturing costs. I suppose they intend to make up the losses via publication of new games, but this model wasn't very successful with the first PS3. Initial manufacturing cost was $800! Yipes!

http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/25/sony-still-losing-money-of-ps3-slim-hardware/

 

[Rebeca]

Well, Linux cannot be installed on the Slim... just the older versions of the console. To be honest though, there isn't much use, due to the lack of applications that are optimized to run on the Cell processor. It's fun for experimentation, but aside from getting a few game emulators running, there wasn't much to do I found. Because of the differences of architectures between Cell and what we use for our PC, performance in general for most things was slow, so it really is for specific audiences only, as far as I'm concerned.

I knew Linux couldn't be installed on the Slim. I had seen some people complain about that (not here) and that's why I asked.