godslabrat Posted June 4, 2009 Share Posted June 4, 2009 Yes, I know Sony's grabbing lots of attention (good and bad) with the PSPGo and Final Fantasy MMCVIXCIIAWOMGWTFBBQ... but why isn't anyone mentioning the leaked photos of the PS3 Slim? Were they just so obviously fake no one is bothering, or what? Or does everyone seriously not care even if they're real? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bilnick Posted June 4, 2009 Share Posted June 4, 2009 I have not seen any photos of the PS3 slim. As long as slim refers to the price of the unit, it could look like a toaster for all I care. I have been wanting to buy a second PS3 since early this year but have been holding out for a price drop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaytonaUSA Posted June 4, 2009 Share Posted June 4, 2009 I honestly don't think they're fake, as during the Sony conference in E3 in that intro video with the PS symbols in white, they showed that butt ugly new PS3 logo real fast in a close up in black. A clue? I think so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DamonicFury Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 Sounds like they're holding off on releasing the Slim (along with an accompanying price drop) until their inventories of the current PS3 are reduced somewhat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cimerians Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 I think its for real too. My buddy only has one system (360) and he's been wanting some games on the PS3 and I told him to hold off till next year. Hopefully it happens before then but who knows. I also would like a second system for some local multiplayer gaming at my house but they are just too damn expensive. I just wish they would bring back PS2 BC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricDeLee Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 multi-gaming at the house would be great. That way the kid can't sit there and cheatwhile on split screen. I still beat him at COD all of the time, yet it would be nice to be on different TVs. That reminds me the first time I ever did something like that. I was in Alaska and Command and Conquer came out for the PS1. You could connect two of them together and play on different TVs. It was great... trying to find the other player and where they were building was fun! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jess Ragan Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 Knowing Sony, it's real... and a hundred dollars more expensive than the previous model! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atari Dogs Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 What is the bid deal if they changed the size? There are two things I would want: 1) a cheaper price, and 2) backward compatibility. If those items are not being discussed, I don't card. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaytonaUSA Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 What is the bid deal if they changed the size? There are two things I would want: 1) a cheaper price, and 2) backward compatibility. If those items are not being discussed, I don't card. And if you already own one, there's only one reason you'd want a slim... and at that point, it's not worth the hassle! And quite honestly, I love the look of my white PS3. Unlike the last two gens, I think when the slim comes out, I'll skip out this time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liveinabin Posted June 6, 2009 Share Posted June 6, 2009 There is no way the PS3 is getting backwards compatibility ever. PS2s are practically free and making every PS3 purchaser pay for support for a Dreamcast era console is fairly pointless. I think BC is only really an important consideration at launch (and Sony, of course, delivered it then). The PS3 has more than enough of it's own AAA games to stand on it's own now. Sure, it'd be nice enough not to have to have two consoles plugged in, but it's just not realistic. As for this slim model. I'm fairly sure it's real but I don't think we've seen the complete unit. I think the fit and finish will change, given that the new PSP still looks more like the current PS3 than this 'new' one, I'm expecting more chrome and piano black elements to match. Not entirely convinced about the box though. That logo looks totally off. They're not going to change the typeface now, that would cause a disparity in style between the machine and the game boxes. I reckon it'll be called the PS3 (as opposed to the Playstation 3) and the logo will reflect this. In fact, at the end of the video trailer for the new WipEout HD Fury add on, we see that exact logo - PS3 in the same Playstation3 'Spiderman' font. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atari_Warlord Posted June 6, 2009 Share Posted June 6, 2009 I have not seen any photos of the PS3 slim. As long as slim refers to the price of the unit, it could look like a toaster for all I care. I have been wanting to buy a second PS3 since early this year but have been holding out for a price drop. Ditto Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jboypacman Posted June 6, 2009 Share Posted June 6, 2009 The people that wanted a PS3 already have one and those that don't are waiting for a price drop so unless the Slim PS3 is cheaper i think people could care less about it at the moment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KrazyKaiju Posted June 7, 2009 Share Posted June 7, 2009 Since they'll have to modify the motherboard design anyway to fit a new slim case, I can't understand why they won't just add the combined emotion engine/graphics synthesizer chip from the new PS2 slims. I'd even be happy paying more for a premium version if it offered BC, yet everything I've read suggests Sony is militantly opposed to restoring it. Focusing your efforts on cutting costs is understandable, but at some point you're going to have to cut your pricing too or else add more useful features in order to get people to buy. They don't seem to be planning on doing either one. Sometimes I think Sony's board meeting must consist of everyone sitting around with their fingers in their ears shouting, "LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA !" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liveinabin Posted June 7, 2009 Share Posted June 7, 2009 Although I've not been a Sony fan in the past (loathed the PS2 in all it's forms), I like the way that Sony is going. They're not comprimising the quality or getting into a price war with the other two (the 360, here, is now cheaper than the DS - that concerns me). They've got an astonishing piece of kit that, frankly, eclipses anything else available and the only concession they've made to market forces was to release a non BC version when the PS2 became an irrelevance. The PS3 may not be making too many waves in US right now but it's going really well in Europe (especially UK, which is the second biggest videogame market in the world - yes, we've overtaken Japan). Yeah, it's more expensive but you get what you pay for. I'd rather pay more up front and own a great console for years and years than save initially and be using some second rate gear made of cheap components that tanks after a couple of years (while I'm not actually citing the 360s ongoing reliability issues in that comparison, it would be valid). A cut down, slim, cheaper version is an inevitability but I'm glad Sony have resisted as long as they have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninjarabbit Posted June 7, 2009 Share Posted June 7, 2009 The PS3 has been out for almost 3 years and it's still at a $400 price point with many retailers are offering deals like $50 gift cards or a free controller to get the damn things off the shelves. Heck the PS2 is selling just as well as the PS3. I'd eventually like to get a PS3 but there's no way I can justify spending $400 on it right now. Drop it to $300 and I'll strongly consider getting it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jboypacman Posted June 7, 2009 Share Posted June 7, 2009 Personal i feel even a $100 price drop to $300 is way too much to spend on a PS3 between the cost of the system,extra controller and games it is a pricey deal. And as far as a Xbox360 being cheaper than a DS i will gladly pay extra for a DS over a 360 any day lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mord Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 The people that wanted a PS3 already have one and those that don't are waiting for a price drop so unless the Slim PS3 is cheaper i think people could care less about it at the moment. Heh. For all we know they'll introduce the slim at the same price and go "but look, there's an extra 30 gigs on the harddrive!!!!!!!!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murfj Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 (edited) Although I've not been a Sony fan in the past (loathed the PS2 in all it's forms), I like the way that Sony is going. They're not comprimising the quality or getting into a price war with the other two (the 360, here, is now cheaper than the DS - that concerns me). They've got an astonishing piece of kit that, frankly, eclipses anything else available and the only concession they've made to market forces was to release a non BC version when the PS2 became an irrelevance. The PS3 may not be making too many waves in US right now but it's going really well in Europe (especially UK, which is the second biggest videogame market in the world - yes, we've overtaken Japan). Yeah, it's more expensive but you get what you pay for. I'd rather pay more up front and own a great console for years and years than save initially and be using some second rate gear made of cheap components that tanks after a couple of years (while I'm not actually citing the 360s ongoing reliability issues in that comparison, it would be valid). A cut down, slim, cheaper version is an inevitability but I'm glad Sony have resisted as long as they have. I'm afraid that though the PS3 is a better piece of hardware than the Xbox 360, it probably won't give most of us more than a couple of good years before failing. From my own experience and that of many others on these forums, the PS3 seems to either quit reading discs or give the yellow light of death after about 2 years of use. It's painful to think of replacing this unit at such a high price every couple of years. Don't get me wrong, I am a big fan and have no doubt that this is a better box than the 360.... just a bit disappointed in the build quality nonetheless. Edited June 8, 2009 by murfj Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xg4bx Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 ill bet it will be unveiled at the tokyo game show this year. i think thats either september or october. i also respect sony for sticking to their guns. if i didn't already own a "next gen" console, id definitely get a ps3. they are very dependable overall and have been putting out a constant stream of rock-solid games for over a year (since mgs4 last june). they're quietly plunking away, releasing great games and upgrading their service and i respect them for that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shadow460 Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 Yeah, it's more expensive but you get what you pay for. I'd rather pay more up front and own a great console for years and years than save initially and be using some second rate gear made of cheap components that tanks after a couple of years (while I'm not actually citing the 360s ongoing reliability issues in that comparison, it would be valid). I paid less than launch price for quite a few older systems and they are still going strong. I have a 7000 series PS1 that works flawlessly, and those were priced at what, $150 off the launch price? I bought into the Saturn late in it's life, saved $100 off launch price, and that's still forging ahead for me. The problem I see here isn't that the console is cheaply built, it's that Sony has cut something vital from it. That something is backwards compatibility. If I'm spending over $300 on a system, I expect it to play most of my existing library. PS2 did that, PS3 does not do it quite so well, if at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Segataritensoftii Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 Yeah, it's more expensive but you get what you pay for. I'd rather pay more up front and own a great console for years and years than save initially and be using some second rate gear made of cheap components that tanks after a couple of years (while I'm not actually citing the 360s ongoing reliability issues in that comparison, it would be valid). I paid less than launch price for quite a few older systems and they are still going strong. I have a 7000 series PS1 that works flawlessly, and those were priced at what, $150 off the launch price? I bought into the Saturn late in it's life, saved $100 off launch price, and that's still forging ahead for me. The problem I see here isn't that the console is cheaply built, it's that Sony has cut something vital from it. That something is backwards compatibility. If I'm spending over $300 on a system, I expect it to play most of my existing library. PS2 did that, PS3 does not do it quite so well, if at all. If you want to play your old PS1 games, it's great for BC. But PS2 games are still largely a no-go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liveinabin Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 I paid less than launch price for quite a few older systems and they are still going strong. I have a 7000 series PS1 that works flawlessly, and those were priced at what, $150 off the launch price? I bought into the Saturn late in it's life, saved $100 off launch price, and that's still forging ahead for me. Sure, the point is that while your Playstation works great, it was a timely price reduction - the 7000 series was cheaply available when the components that make up the Playstation were cheaply available because they weren't cutting edge(and your Saturn was just Sega losing money sadly). What I don't want is cut corners on something like the PS3 at this point in it's life where it still costs a hell of a lot to make. There are little or no legitimate savings to pass on to the buyer right now. A $200- PS3 would have to have some inferior bits somewhere I think. The BC thing is really an issue for some, certainly. Probably mostly on sites like this (where we're more likely to play older games). I'm just not a fan. I'd rather play older games on the original system (or a handheld). I'm all for a new system being the best thorobred machine it can be for playing the latest games. I like that the Gamecube didn't play N64 games, that the DC didn't play Saturn games. Every component in these machines was solely dedicated to doing the one job. I think incorporating BC diffuses the vision. It's like Microsoft Windows - if they didn't have to run programs and files from much older versions, MS could actually make (maybe) a really streamlined efficient OS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reaperman Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 (edited) the redesign is a bit under my radar still, because I haven't seen any officially released pictures yet. Just some leaked mockups that don't appear 'final.' Generally a good idea though--redesigns usually mean they've found cheaper ways to build ps3 hardware and want to cash in on it. Some very big sony games are hitting this year or early next, and I expect those to start really moving consoles. After the titles age a bit, I'd even expect pack-in bundles with them. Since I expect to really see ps3 consoles selling, it's only natural for sony to want to actually make a profit off of hardware too. Honestly I have no problem with ps3's price. PS2 had a good long life, and I expect the same this time around. It's the best playstation ever, without question. And in *my mind* there are no other valid gaming hardware options this generation. It's not that I especially like ps3, but rather that it's competition does not quite fit into my minimum gaming standards as well as they did last gen. Edited June 8, 2009 by Reaperman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cimerians Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 Here we go again with a rumored PS3 price cut. If this one finally does happen then I would think a slim version couldn't be too far ahead. My main issue (besides the BC) is all the different models that came out since launch. My friend asked me to put together some info on all the models that are out there and if not for WIKI I would have had a bitch of a time trying to put it all together for him. That was some confusing bonehead decision making by Sony. They finally settled on a model but alienated some gamers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cimerians Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 Another rumor....slim PS3 being bundled with Madden 2010: http://ps3.qj.net/Rumor-PS3-Slim-bundled-w...g/49/aid/133216 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
AtariAge on Instagram
Watch us on YouTube
Chat on Discord
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.