Confirmed: PlayStation 3 will ship with 60 GB HDD
by James Ransom-Wiley 
{ Mar 17th 2006 at 3:45PM }
3.jpg)
To clear any confusion, a Sony representative, speaking with Yahoo! Games, has confirmed that the PS3
will ship with a 60 GB HDD, with an option to upgrade. No PS3 bundles will be sold without a hard drive. However, it's
unclear if by upgrading, purchasers will have the option to buy the console with a larger hard drive, or if they'll be
forced take the 60 GB HDD and buy an additional, larger drive separately—we guess the latter (at least, at
launch), but aren't ruling out the possibility of two bundles with different sized hard drives (for example, 60 GB and
100 GB bundles).Overall, standardizing the consoles to include a hard drive benefits both developers and consumers. But we're still left wondering if the asking price will be out of the range of a significant percentage of potential buyers.
[Thanks, The1 & Ron]
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Scott @ Mar 17th 2006 4:01PM
Actually, the hard drive is probably the least expensive thing in the Ps3.
BPMΩ @ Mar 17th 2006 4:02PM
Kutaragi already said it would be expensive, and it wouldn't be marketed towards households (if that makes any sense...).
As for the hard drive... Well, a laptop 60GB HDD retails for about $130... And a desktop one probably goes for less (I can't find prices at the moment)... So, I guess it depends on what size drive they'd go for...
It is a good idea, yes, but I can't help but wonder how much the PS3 is going to retail for...
Sicknic @ Mar 17th 2006 4:02PM
Didn't Sony also confirm last month that the ps3 was still scheduled for release in the spring? I've come to find that when it comes to sony and their "confirmations", I'll be better off waiting until it hits store shelves then believing them...
pete @ Mar 17th 2006 4:02PM
my guess: 499.99 for the 60gb bundle. not a penny less.
nizzy1115 @ Mar 17th 2006 4:03PM
Awesome! But will the drive be usb or pripority like the 360's? Will it be internal or external? 2.5" or 3.5"? Sata or ide? Can any usb hard drive be used to save game data to?
This certinaly leaves lots of questions!
bv @ Mar 17th 2006 4:04PM
sweet! 1 more reason why the Ps3 is worth the wait. I could care less about the price, your getting such high quality brand new components for a fraction of what it would cost to buy them individually to build your own home pc.
vidGuy @ Mar 17th 2006 4:11PM
Good. And with the size of the case, there should be plenty of room to put in a 3.5" standard drive, costing probably $30 when bought in bulk.
That link you posted Justin has a really weird semi-quote.. "Sony, earlier this week, said the hard drive would be required to play games but that it might be an optional upgrade. "
I'm sure it's just a typo, missing the n't, to make it wouldn't be required, but what a typo!
Regula Oblique @ Mar 17th 2006 4:15PM
What I really love about this news is unlike microsft, sony is telling developers to make the games as the harddrive is always there so this should cut down on the loading times.the 360's HD is basically just for storage nothing more.
Bill Gates @ Mar 17th 2006 4:15PM
Anyone wants a slightly used Xbox 360 for $5?
32_Footsteps @ Mar 17th 2006 4:19PM
Well, I do know that about a year ago, I bought an external USB 80GB hard drive for $80 retail. An smaller, internal drive would be notably cheaper than that (also, the drive I got would probably be at least $10 cheaper now ). I personally suspect that while there are components that will inflate the cost of the PS3, a 60 GB internal hard drive is not one of them. I don't know if vidGuy's $30 price tag for them in bulk is right, but it certainly sounds reasonable.
Of course, we still don't know how much of a financial hit Sony is willing to take on the console... after all, if they're willing to take the hit that would result in selling the console at $350, it's a bit pointless to worry about a $500 price tag. However, if we know they aren't willing to take more than, say, a $100 hit per console, then the price becomes a huge worry.
ck @ Mar 17th 2006 4:29PM
I agree with 32_Footsteps, cost isn't a factor in this bit of news. I highly doubt the hard drive will be used for anything other than storage. Sony is trying to make this a media-center friendly console that can do everything and 60gb will get eaten up with music and movies and game downloads fairly quick.
I do hope that this results in a better save game system for the consoles, though. That's the only thing I want for the hard drive.
AceMilo @ Mar 17th 2006 4:31PM
"But will the drive be usb or pripority like the 360's?"
The 360 uses a standard sata 2.5" hdd in a propriatary shell, the hdd itself is standard.
"it's a bit pointless to worry about a $500 price tag. However, if we know they aren't willing to take more than, say, a $100 hit per console, then the price becomes a huge worry."
Sony HATES taking a hit on the cost of their consoles. If the ps3 costs say $900 for them to make, they are NOT willing to lose more than half of the unit cost on each unit sold, they just won't. I cannot see the ps3 costing a dime under $500. It doesn't matter how much the hdd costs them to add, just being able to say "our console has a 60 gig hdd!" justifies them raising the price. You think a 20gig sata 2.5" hdd costs MS $100??? Hell no. Sony is losing their focus. They used to market to the "casual" gamer, but having a console with everything under the sun and a price tag to match will not win the "casual" gamer. Of course a certain percent of the gaming population will buy it just because its a console or just because of the name, but your average consumer will see a 360 and a ps3 next to each other, check out the price tags (by then the 360 should be at least 100 bucks cheaper) and make the obvious choice. Most likely by year's end the premium will be $300 or $350, and with a price like that and with an established lineup, its gonna be a hard sell to push a $500+ console.
ry @ Mar 17th 2006 4:32PM
#6, 60gb hard drives are hardly new. Welcome to the year 2006.
Vader582 @ Mar 17th 2006 4:34PM
...sniff sniff...I smell the odor of Sony fanbois...
graf1k @ Mar 17th 2006 4:35PM
It's just kind of hilarious to me to think that MS is the company with the optional hard drive and Sony is making them standard. I think a year ago if you asked anybody, they'd say it would be the opposite if anything. Anyway, this is really smart of Sony. Seems they are willing to learn from their web mistakes while unfortunately MS is unable to recognize what it did right the first time. I agree with the prediction that the PS3 will be $500, but it'll sell out anyway.
Now that the hardware and launch date are pretty much finalized, how about some real time footage of some actual games Sony?
Andy @ Mar 17th 2006 4:37PM
Wow - that is an incredibly foolish business decision for Sony. That means they're stuck with the hard drive, just like Microsoft was with the Xbox 1 - a problem that ultimately cost them millions. This means that in the short run AND the long run, Sony won't be able to compete on price.
that guy over there reading the sign @ Mar 17th 2006 4:41PM
wow im 2/3 in my ps3 predictions vs friends
1.that it was coming in fall(i said october but close lol)
2.that ps3 will have multi consoles and all will have hdds.
and my third is
the ps3 with smaller hdd 350 and the bigger 400 now maybe 450.
this is great news to know that hdd is coming standard.
rog27 @ Mar 17th 2006 4:46PM
What makes anyone think anyone but Sony know how much it costs Sony to make a PS3? Hell, they could include a HDD and lose less per console than Microsoft does with XBox360 and you would never freaking know?
Does anyone realize that when a company orders an off the shelf part (standard 60 GB SATA HDD) in massive quantities (in the millions) that it costs many times less than even an OEM part does. You can get a brand spanking new OEM 60 GB SATA HDD at newegg.com now for $81.00 and that's you buying it in the quanity of one unit! A company that buys a million units will pay 35 or 40 bucks a HDD at that rate. They could sell them at 50 dollars as a peripheral and still make a profit. Most likely they will include it bundled with the console and increase the price of the console by cost or slightly above cost (increase base price for consumer ~$50...so if base price was $400.00 sell a "Value Pack PS3" bundled with 60 GB HDD for $450.00). They would fly off the shelf faster than any other console known to mankind, even at that price...because the perceived value is soooo much higher than $450.00.
Cliff @ Mar 17th 2006 4:47PM
The $500 range for the PS3 is just a suggested retail price and is as of now, just speculation. Ken Kutaragi said that it will be expensive, but they will have to try hard to contain the price. Kaz Hirai also said that the PS3 will be expensive, but will be priced competitively with the Xbox 360. Right now the Xbox 360 with the HDD is selling for $400. I wouldn't be surprised if the PS3 would sell between $400-499.
Fenris @ Mar 17th 2006 4:51PM
The only real issue that I see here is that the drive does not appear to be removable (by the customer). This is where MS had a problem last time.
I like MS's approach with the removable upgradeable drive, however the 2 SKU idea still aggrivates me to no end, and love the damn machine.
The HD is the key to what both Sony and MS are pushing for as far a downloadable content and micro transactions. I have to admit I thought that sony would make the HD a separate purchase.
Didn't Sony say a while back that the HD would be removable, Or do I just have that confused with MS.
Andy @ Mar 17th 2006 4:53PM
Hey #18 - you're clueless. Who do you think is going to buy more hard drives - Dell or Sony? The PS3 will remain a small percentage of the laptop hard drive market and therefore will not significantly affect hard drive prices.
Spartacus @ Mar 17th 2006 4:58PM
"What I really love about this news is unlike microsft, sony is telling developers to make the games as the harddrive is always there so this should cut down on the loading times.the 360's HD is basically just for storage nothing more."
Incorrect.
MS has left it up the developer whether or not they utilize the HDD for caching data. Most games on the Xbox did NOT even thought the HDD was "standard". Elder Scrolls Oblivion has already reccomended a HDD for faster load times, but it is NOT required. This means that games can simply utilize a HDD IF one is present. Not having one "standard" does not effect the game development. A code is simply needed to run on an "if/then" sequence.
"If a HDD is available, then cache data. If a HDD is not available, then read directly from disc."
Quite simple really. Furthermore, Sony stated themselves a while back that their HDD WILL NOT BE USED FOR GAMING PURPOSES, ONLY MEDIA STORAGE. So I find it amusing that we're now picking and choosing Sony quotes and "confirmations" of the purpose and availability of the HDD. This news has absolutely no impact on the 360 or its HDD uses. Do I think the 360 should've come standard with a HDD? Yes, but only because at this point, I think ALL consoles should simply because it should have some sort of game save capability straight out of the box, unlike PS1, PS2 and GamCube.
Furthermore, everyone here is greatly overestimating the percentage of devs who use the HDD for caching. You're also greatly underestimating the purpose and amount of RAM in both machines. The PS3 was built around a streaming philosophy. The disc drive, the Cell and the 512MB of RAM all serve this philosophy. Only if the BR drive ends up being a 1x (highly unlikely) will devs really need to put the effort into caching in order to keep load times acceptable. Expect similar load times of your PS2 either way would be my guess, but that will mainly be determined by the DEVELOPER, not the hardware. Same goes for the 360.
that guy over there reading the sign @ Mar 17th 2006 4:58PM
i think alot of you are forgetting that sony makes the majority of the ps3 parts unlike ms who buys them from others.and are also underestimating sony wanting to push blueray.if blueray becomes standard sony will be making a ton for the next 20some years off all the drives and disk.
Gianni Gotti @ Mar 17th 2006 4:59PM
I just bought 2 160 GB drives at Best Buy for $60 each. I suspect that when purchased in quantities of millions the dead net cost of a 60 GB drive is perhaps $25-$30.
The other thing to remember is that it unleashes massive revenue opportunites for Sony:
>Movies
>Games
>Music
The Hard Drive investment will pay for itself in the first year!
qrayg @ Mar 17th 2006 5:00PM
Why on earth would anyone want anything more than 60GB for a video game console?????????!!!!!!!!????????
Darth Pixel @ Mar 17th 2006 5:03PM
Well, I will join those who claimed high and loud that it was a mistake to make the 360 HDD optional.
It seems Sony listened to some feedback that was intended to Microsoft.
Now, if they do a better job at backward compatibility, they are going to please a lot of people. (less than 35% of all Xbox games are playable on the 360...and they call this backward compatibility)
Gianni Gotti @ Mar 17th 2006 5:04PM
By the way, I watched the entire conference from the Famitsu link & Kutaragi-san says that every PS3 will have a Hard Drive.
"attari/nakattari shinai"
Eric @ Mar 17th 2006 5:08PM
This is pretty good news. As far as everyone's price fears (if you believe hype) then they said at lowest it would cost $425...ASSUMING that they decided before they stated this that the 60GB HD was shipping with it, $425 sounds reasonable...
Lots of good news lately--So best case scenario for us is that it will cost $425 with a hard drive(again, only if their hype is true)...Also, a November release will only be a delay for Japan which would have seen its PS3's this spring...(although I do realize this "world wide launch" means a lot fewer consoles for everyone)
Jago @ Mar 17th 2006 5:09PM
Wow do ANY of you guys do your homework? The hard drive has been confirmed to a 2.5" laptop hard drive for some time now.
Also...maybe somone can correct this but I could've sworn that there was a bay on the left side of the PS3 for the hard drive. Anyone else remember seeing this or am I dillusional?
bodah @ Mar 17th 2006 5:10PM
"i think alot of you are forgetting that sony makes the majority of the ps3 parts"
NO, sony does not make thier own parts. The cell is made by IBM, the graphics chip is made by nvidia. When is the last time you bought a sony harddrive or memory? Everything of relevance in the ps3, except maybe the blue ray drive itself, is made by an outside entity.
riggidy rag rahhhhh heeee @ Mar 17th 2006 5:14PM
499 is fecking reasonable if it has all that, 399 is way too low.
logikil @ Mar 17th 2006 5:16PM
MS not making the hard drive standard isn't really a big deal. They've given the system enough system RAM that it makes up for not having the drive available for caching. Granted if it were available across the board there may be even more tricks that could have been made available but ultimately its not a big deal.
The drive being standard for the PS3 will be cool if for nothing else than you dont have to spend the money after the fact, but what it does mean is the system is going to cost even more. I know people are trying to downplay the cost of a 60GB HDD, but it is still an added cost whether you like it or not. I would wager the PS3 clocks in at 450-500 dollars. Thats quite a little chunk of change. But next week will hopefully clear some stuff up with news from GDC.
God its going to be an expensive Christmas :(.
Jago @ Mar 17th 2006 5:16PM
"Why on earth would anyone want anything more than 60GB for a video game console?"
B/c they already said the PS3 can also be used as a network server when it is setup.
Read the news stories people. Before people start saying that the PS3 is going to be $425, that whole price is based on SPECULATION based on what someone "heard" when it MIGHT be 50,000 Yen (~$425.)
Just wanna clear that up before people start taking it as the word of god or something.
rico @ Mar 17th 2006 5:23PM
so what i mean yeah you can download movies and games and music on the PS3. oh wait i can do that on my pc and its cheaper.
The hard drive can be used for download content but with sonys blue ray disk they will not need to do that because the game developers i dout will be able to fill up the 50Gb disks so they (the developers) should not cut the story short to save the multi player like some games (HALO 2 story was shit multi player good)
Eric @ Mar 17th 2006 5:24PM
#21-Spartacus,
I'm not sure that your point about picking and choosing confirmations is completely rock solid.
Frankly I'm impressed that Sony would change their game plan. This proves that they've been listening to the chatter. If they use the hard drive for gaming this proves that they are a dynamic company willing to change their strategy, not the staunch and cocky company that blindly sticks to their strategy written in stone.
I do recall Sony confirming some time ago (Nov?) that there would be NO unified online service. They must have been listening to the chatter and playing games on XBL because not too long after they started sending out questionnaires...Now, ta da--Sony states they have a unified online service that will rival XBL.
Apparently they have their finger on the pulse and they DO consider the XBox a rival (whether they are willing to admit it or not, Microsoft has their "blackbelt")I think its good that they have a dynamic strategy, thats why they've been slim on the details, so they would be able to change anything.
Joshi @ Mar 17th 2006 5:25PM
Jago: I remember seeing that too.
I was hoping that the PS3 would cost $399 and up (remember, that magic $425 number was a conversion from yen, and consoles always cost more in Japan, XB360 excepted...) but after hearing this, I'm not sure if we'll be able to see a PS3 for less than $499.
Which, no matter how much the Cell processor, Blu-ray drive, and 60GB hard drive are worth, is a lot for a console.
I think Sony will sell the PS3 at a loss - probably for $399. With Blu-ray, they just have too much to gain by getting a PS3 into as many houses as possible. They're not going to risk losing domination of a media standard because they priced the PS3 too high. The PS3 will be a loss leader.
logikil @ Mar 17th 2006 5:25PM
Spartacus,
Props to you man. If more people posted intelligent comments similar to yours then perhaps reading through the comments wouldn't cost me a few iq points every day.
Freak @ Mar 17th 2006 6:01PM
Folks bought Xbox 360s at launch for a $1000. They still buy 'em for $500 on Ebay.
You really think price is going to be an issue for the early adopter crowd? I didn't think so.
SuicideNinja @ Mar 17th 2006 6:03PM
The real question for the PS3 hard drive is: Can you use ANY 2.5" IDE/SATA (whichever they picked)? Or do you have to buy theirs. That would be an improvement over Microsoft's offering; otherwise it's not that interesting. But the only way I can see the hard drive being "open" in such a way is if it couldn't be used for games (and just media).
Spartacus, don't forget that the Core 360 doesn't come with a storage device out of the box, just like the PS2, PSX, and Gamecube. They should have at least provided a memory card for Core buyers.
Everyone talks about the Cell and Bluray. I think the prominent features are the bluetooth, and flash card readers. Those open up options, such as being able to use Microdrives in the CF slots, or connecting any bluetooth device. My only problem is that it isn't seeming like a game machine anymore.
At the moment, I don't see how Bluray or HD-DVD are gonig to win anything. Right now, all the HDTVs without HDMI inputs and HDCP compatibility are affordable, whether CRT, Projection, or LCD. Consumers are going to grab those. Then they'll try Bluray or HD-DVD and won't get even 720p and feel cheated. But an upscaling DVD player will play at 720p/1080i, without buying the expensive new formats.
Anyway, hard drives are cheap nowadays. What I'm worried about is the Bluray discs. If Bluray fails, then we would end up paying the expense of their production (for all PS3 titles since it's required).
Skullfire @ Mar 17th 2006 6:13PM
Regardles if a HDD comes as standard or not. If it is removable, developers can never count on it being present (after all, it is removable!). People who do not have their HDD avail (for whatever reason) will still want to play there games. Developers can only ever really count on the HDD being available if it is non-removable. MS's decision makes sense, if you take 5 mins to think about it.
Jake @ Mar 17th 2006 6:18PM
Bodah,
Nvidia only designed the RSX, they will not be manufacturing the actual GPU's for the PS3. While Sony still won't be manufacturing them (I believe it is expected that IBM will, but I very well could be wrong), I thought I would let you know.
Player @ Mar 17th 2006 6:23PM
To clear up on the type of hard drive it will be, according to Playstation.com it will have a "detachable 2.5" HDD slot x 1".
I personally think having a HDD as standard is a good idea. And although with all the stuff Sony claim to be realing over their online service, it won't be enough in the long run. It's a good start.
Jago @ Mar 17th 2006 6:27PM
@ Skullfire:
Umm...if the hard drive is required to play the game as well as using their "HUB" network then it isn't a problem. If something is being sold WITH the system then it is being required for a reason.
Jago @ Mar 17th 2006 6:31PM
I "PRAY" that the hard drive it doesn't come in some special casing like the X360 hard drive. If its just a normal hard drive that you plugin then we can buy them for cheap online.
slow news day @ Mar 17th 2006 6:32PM
So this hard drive... is this the mystery $100 component missing from the calculation in the Merrill Lynch report last month on the estimated cost of the PS3? Prior to this week, nobody knew the hard drive was going to be included.
Is the PS3 hard drive removable?
sam @ Mar 17th 2006 6:39PM
MSRP $699.99
Launch Spring 2007
hello @ Mar 17th 2006 6:42PM
why does jago always have minus five stars?
LaughingTarget @ Mar 17th 2006 6:45PM
It is not a question wether the early adopters will be willing to shell out $500 for the unit, but wether the price can drop fast enough to close the gap the 360 is currently building. If the PS3 does, in fact, ship with a $499 price tag, that means there is a $100 gap between the PS3 and the 360 that needs to close. Because of this, the 360 will reach the larger market sector faster, building a quicker sales momentum.
Even now it is difficult to see a 360 premium selling for over $500 without included extras. The only ones going for over $500 are the updated "no overheat" ones, and that one went for $510 without extras. The one with two controllers and charger kit pulled $545, but that is less than the $510 given the $100 for the two controllers and charger. On average, the EBay market is barely breaking even on the 360 at this point. The early adopter strategy has already run its course and the market prices have dropped to retail. There are even Core systems bundled with hard drives, essentially making it a premium, sitting there without bids with an hour to go at $399.99, or exact retail.
So, we are currently seeing no premium on the 360 at this point. Sure, it is still sold out, but at the 2 million mark, we are seeing a reluctance to pay over or even at $400. The shipping costs are already causing the 360 to lose its EBay appeal. People are no longer willing to pay a dime over $400+tax.
This will hamper the PS3 if it does sell over $500. If around the 2 million mark the marketplace demands a $400 console, then Sony has just overpriced the PS3 by $100, and there may very well be a surplus on the shelves come March 2007. Even at $425 this will cause issues. Consumers are not going to factor in that 60 gig hard drive and think "ya, that is worth $25-$100 more", mainly because your typical consumer just doesn't care about that space because they'll unlikely use much of it. For example, I behaved like your typical consumer with the first Xbox. I never used Live during that generation nor did I use the hard drive for anything other than saving my games. Because of that, I managed to breach 10 megs of saved game space over the course of 40 total played games, many of which were rented and never bothered to delete the saves afterward. Once you pass that 2 million mark, the rest of the crowd is your typical consumer. The mass crowd will view that 60 gig hard drive as an incidental that should be included without extra cost over percieved market price.
The 360 set this generation's cost standard. Brand loyalty only goes so far, as was proven with the N64. Nintendo had the undisputed brand name in video games prior to 1996, but when Nintendo released the N64 at a higher price, both hardware and software, they lost the crown to the new kid on the block, Playstation. Sony is going to have to tread lightly in this generation lest they let the same thing happen to them. Brand recognition is powerful, but only to a certain extent. If the cost exceeds the alternative by more than the brand premium, then you've lost your sale. In this generation, consumers are going to have to ask themselves just how much more the name Playstation 3 is worth over the name Xbox 360, and if Sony prices the PS3 beyond that, they'll lose a lot of customers, especially since there really are no apparent differences between the two to the general crowds.
Enigma @ Mar 17th 2006 7:06PM
Sony Playstation costed more than the N64. They lost people to it, because people wanted the next gen of the time which was the CD-Rom. And Sony had great games people wanted to play. Nintendo lacked third party support outside a few EA games and Acclaim (which are no longer around). The gamers matured and wanted those types of games Sony was offering.
Also the N64 wasnt this super computer it was spouted to be with "silicon graphics ala Ultra 64". I came out far less powerful than the PS2 hype. And that burned a lot of people.
Price was a tiny margin. And if you think that the PS3 wont sell, and will sit on the shelves, even if it is $100 more than the 360, then your nuts. Other console fanboys will say they wont buy it, but it will sell just as fast at $500 as the 360 did at $400.
But I will almost bet it wont be more than $400. The competition always sets the pricing.
LaughingTarget @ Mar 17th 2006 7:16PM
Ah, you're somewhat right about that. The Playstation launched at $299 in 1995, but dropped to $199 to match the N64 in 1996.
It wasn't the CD's "next gen" that attracted customers, but the $20-$30 price difference between PS1 games and N64 games. N64 titles were selling from $60-$70 new when PS1 was pulling down $40-$50. The N64 was a superior machine, but the outdated cartridge format priced them out of the major market. The excessive size of the CD at the time was not necessary as larger, more vibrant games were released for the 64 than on the PS1 on average. Even titles like FFVII were able to fit on a 64 cartridge had the pre-rendered cutscenes not been included. The CD format simply was cheaper, just not utilized right as they usually were just bloated with large movies.