Sony clears up some PS3 confusion
Sony has officially commented on earlier rumors (that we did our best to debunk earlier) regarding the lack of upgradability in the "core" $500 version of the system. The rumor stated that the lower model would be unable to use wireless controllers (suggesting the console would ship with wired controllers) and that the 20GB hard drive would be unable to be upgraded. A Sony spokesperson told GamesIndustry.biz, "Both configurations will support Bluetooth PS3 controllers." As for the second rumor, Phil Harrison told GI.biz earlier, "You can put in any drive that you like - it is a computer, after all."
What about the other disparities between the two systems? Sony says both a Wi-Fi adapter and a card reader will be available for the system leaving HDMI output as the "only non-upgradeable feature of the 20GB configuration."
[Via Engadget]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Ryan @ May 19th 2006 11:09AM
Freaking HDMI is the one you really want. That is so dumb....stupid $600
Ryan Cooper @ May 19th 2006 11:09AM
So if you want HD from Sony, it's gonna cost you $599 USD.
I feel sorry for you guys, haha.
JesusXP @ May 19th 2006 11:09AM
how many times you gonna post this?
teknomusik @ May 19th 2006 11:10AM
Still overpriced.
DarthCojimo @ May 19th 2006 11:16AM
Thank God! Sony FTW!!
the Brayn @ May 19th 2006 11:17AM
But how much are they going to charge for the larger HD or the wireless card? Also, why is it he said it would support wireless controllers and not that it will be shipped with a wireless controller? Could this imply that they will ship the $600 console with a wired controller?
P.S. I don't want a new computer I want a gaming console.
the Brayn @ May 19th 2006 11:19AM
oops meant the $500 system not the $600
Spaced @ May 19th 2006 11:21AM
600 bucks < xbox360 + live + HD-DVD
A lot less.
Stealth Ninja Hidden Costs will own you and your puppy.
I just hope Sony implements a decent online gaming system.
JodyAnthony @ May 19th 2006 11:23AM
If i wanted a "computer" I would spend $600 on a damn computer. I want a gaming console.
Sean @ May 19th 2006 11:24AM
HDMI is the most important thing missing from the cheap one IMO. Stupid Sony :P
SP @ May 19th 2006 11:24AM
"Upgrade to any size you like"? That seems really unlikely that they would let you put a non-Sony hard drive into it.
Daniel M. @ May 19th 2006 11:26AM
the HD is a standard notebook-sized hard drive.
you can put any size in there you want.
Crosswayboy @ May 19th 2006 11:26AM
"You can put in any drive that you like - it is a computer, after all."
Wait... why would I buy a computer when all I want is a game console?
I think Sony, in trying to have their system become the end-all-be-all of consoles forgot somewhere along the way who their core audience is.
Console gamers don't want an expensive computer, otherwise they would go out and BUY an expensive computer to play games on. Sony is simply forcing their product onto the gaming community, and I for one hope they fail miserably for trying to do so.
Ben Roe @ May 19th 2006 11:28AM
#11 Sony have said before that you will be able to put any hard drive in there, although there may be an official Sony drive upgrade for those who want it.
Of course, that is from the Sony of the "Toy Story graphics in real time" quote, so add a heap of salt.
Vader582 @ May 19th 2006 11:29AM
I have a feeling that by the time the PS3 rolls around that (xbox360 + live + HD-DVD) will be less than $600. Plus we're not entirely sure what the pricepoint will be for the HD-DVD drive...
Personally, I feel that FREE is NOT always BETTER. The old adage, "you get what you pay for", feels like it might be appropiate here. Time will tell I guess.
tiremfej @ May 19th 2006 11:31AM
It seems the more comments $ony makes the deeper $ony goes into a hole. I don't understand their whle thought process here. $ony is really quite full of themselves, and pretty arrogant, if they feel consumers will purchase it. I'm a parent, I would never buy a $600 console for my child. $ony is insane!
White Rose Duelist @ May 19th 2006 11:31AM
Spaced - what if I don't want Live or HD-DVD?
Jerm @ May 19th 2006 11:32AM
So here is the real question. What good is BluRay going to do you without HDMI? As soon as the Studios decide to start enforcing the copy protection, say goodbye to your HD BlueRay DVD's at 1080 or even 720. So the question is, why do the $499 version even have BluRay drives?
Miles Teg @ May 19th 2006 11:35AM
I'm glad thats all cleared up.
You dont need a HDMI port to view in HD by the way #3.
Still it doesn't change much. I dont have a HDTV & I dont have $499 so no Neo-Geo, oops' I mean no PS3 for me for a while.
Canadian Geese @ May 19th 2006 11:37AM
no HDMI is a pretty big deal... that's how blu-ray is designed to send 1080p signals. Blu-ray can send up to 1080i, depending on the ICT, over analog and up to 1080p over HDMI.
Anonymous @ May 19th 2006 11:39AM
The price is going to be raised with every discussion made about the PS3 unfortunetly. YES its expensive (and for a games console...too expensive).
There are still plenty of people out there that can afford to pay $600 for it and they can and will more than likely buy the PS3 because of the brand name. Sure Sony will lose customers because of the price, but don't be so sure that they've gone and blown it - they'll no doubt sell out worldwide.
Night Elve @ May 19th 2006 11:39AM
Well yeah HDMI is not that important because you can reach 720p or 1080i with the Component Cable. But yeah as soon as the Studios decide to start the protection thing we will say good by to this feature as Jerm said.
Lets see what happen personally i will go for the $599, lets hope there will not be any kind of protection in future Blueray disc in the future.
Ryan @ May 19th 2006 11:39AM
"600 bucks < xbox360 + live + HD-DVD"
Actually M$ allready announced that they plan to price the HD-DVD drive so that if one was to buy a 360 (the real deal, not the core) and the hd-dvd drive it will total less than $500. add to that xbox live and youre still not at $600. I can't get over how annoying it is to hear people bash the cost of live. Yes, SONY's system (which we have still yet to see any real info on) will be free but do you really think you will get anywhere near the quality of service we get from microsoft. The reason LIVE works so well is because M$ insists on using their own, personally maintained servers and not the crap servers the game companies setup for PS2 games. Why do yo0u thing ea games online are a crapshoot. If SONY can create a free online gaming solution that is half as good as XBOX Live i will be thoroughlly impressed but i highly doubt it as their still charging out the ass to play 8 year old MMOs on their servers.
P.S. VIVA LA WII
daniel @ May 19th 2006 11:40AM
what size hard drives does it use though?
coalhalo @ May 19th 2006 11:41AM
"Phil Harrison told GI.biz earlier, "You can put in any drive that you like - it is a computer, after all." "...
Well, well, there we have it, straight from the horse's mouth (or in this case, ass). The PS3 is not a next-gen gaming console, but a home entertainment center. Sony is using the PS3 to install Blu-Ray. How many PS2's have sold? Something like 100 million? That's what Sony sees. They know that a certain number of consumers will purchase the PS3 right of the bat, and they are hoping to repeat the PS2 numbers, so they can push Blu-Ray as the next dominant media format. Don't think they have forgotten the sting of Betamax, they see themselves as redeeeming themselves this time around.
It's starting to become apparent to me that gaming is not the focus of the PS3 in the minds of the Sony execs. Personally I was looking forward to buying a PS3 and putting it next to my 360, but now I have my doubts. I buy consoles to play games on them. I buy computers to do other things. If I wanted to buy a Sony computer, I would buy a Vaio, but why would I want to do that? I can get better for less money. The more I hear from Sony these days is one big "F-YOU" to the gamers. Sony does not care about gamers, they want the casual player and his casual disposible income.
ManOwaR @ May 19th 2006 11:42AM
Sony hs lost there frickin' minds. Think about it. Nearly $600 for the system alone, then add the fact that most people buy at least two games and a extra controller, which would be about an extra $150.00.
Sub-Total - $750.00
Add tax on $750.00 (in NY that wouid be 8.25%) so the tax would com out to about $61.88
Total = 811.88!!!!
Sony is commiting marketing suicide with this attempt. The final cost of the PS3 is about two times as much as I would pay for a XBox 360.
Someone at Sony had better wake up and smell the Coffee!
apoc06 @ May 19th 2006 11:42AM
lol @ #8: "Stealth Ninja Hidden Costs will own you and your puppy."
oh and #14: "toy story graphics"? i dare you to find a link with someone from sony directly quoting that. the truth is, sony didnt make that claim. it came straight from microsoft themselves. http://wired-vig.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,40970,00.html?tw=wn_story_related
so lets please let that rumor die...
DBX00 @ May 19th 2006 11:43AM
If you don't like the product options they've offered, DON'T BUY IT at launch. If you can't afford it, there are plenty of people that will still purchase it. People spend hundreds on shoes and handbags. There is a market for luxury goods and they more people complain about the price, the more this becomes a luxury good. I'm glad that I can afford it at launch and don't care if the rest of the world can't do it. All this complaining just means that later in the lifecycle of the system people will growth will be steadily as it comes down in price. It's amazing how short cited everyone can be sometimes. Sure, in today's world not everyone has HDTV or game developers may not feel the need to use the storage of blu ray. However, it only takes one game developer to come up with a creative idea to utilize the storage and the industry follows. It'll only take one 'killer' product to push HDTV over the edge. Sony has built a system that can carry you through the next 5-6 YEARS. That's longer than you'll probably have you computer, certainly longer than you're Ipod will last, and many other devices.
My point is that if you're concerned about price, you're probably not an early adopter as these individuals are significant less price sensitive. These are the guys/gals that paid $10,000 for the original plasma televisions and are willing to gamble on HD-DVD or Blu Ray early on in the battle. If you aren't one of these people, sorry you'll just have to wait another year or go buy a XBOX 360. As far as I can tell, they need some help pushing that product out the door worldwide.
Spaced @ May 19th 2006 11:45AM
@white rose duelist
Well if you want a system that is not online capable and lacks high storage media then an xbox360 is the better deal. If you do want to go online and have the high storage media, the ps3 is a better deal. In actuality, the live service alone(for your console's lifespan) will put you over the ps3 pricerange. But in order to get roughly the same experience I felt like I needed to attach hd-dvd on there anyway.
Ultimately it's going to be about the games though. And neither system seems to be doing to well in that area. Even with a year headstart, the 360 only has a handful of truely awesome games and the rest of 2006 looks like meager pickings. Most of the good 360 stuff is slated for a 2007 release. There weren't too many PS3 games to get excited about at E3 either.
Don't get me wrong, I have an xbox360, I'm just pointing out something that seems to be overlooked with the pricing. Microsoft likes the hidden costs. Gets the 360 in a lot of homes and then people realize they can't play online without paying more money. The adoption rate for the live service is very high(wasn't it ~80%+) for 360 users. How many good single player games are on the system or set to come out on the system? All I know is when I look over my 360 collection of games, I don't have a single game not designed with multiplayer in mind. Oblivion seems like the only contender and I have the superior PC version.
jron @ May 19th 2006 11:45AM
hey, ps3 fucked my friends dog, Wii 4 ev4r!!!111one23
Serisouly, Can you please post something new about the PS3?
Kamalot @ May 19th 2006 11:48AM
The 'cheap' model of the PS3 is $200 more than the 'cheap' model of the Xbox.
The 'advantage' to buying a PS3 is that you get Bluray.
Bluray is useless in the long-term without HDMI.
The inability to upgrade from the 'cheap' PS3 to one with HDMI means that $200 'advantage' is now a boat anchor.
Anyone who seriously thinks of the PS3 as a cheap Bluray player would, in essence, have to buy the 'expensive' version, that being $300 more than the 'cheap' Xbox 360.
$300 isn't a deal on an unproven format. Would you spend $300 on a Betamax player or a Laserdisc player? It is far too early to put any kind of foot into the Bluray or HD-DVD format camp, especially when $300 can get you a crap-load of games, or another console, or an iPod.
I don't see how this lack of upgradability can be seen as good news.
Miles Teg @ May 19th 2006 11:50AM
So basically the Core PS3 is going to be no good for copy protected Movies & will not support 1080p or even 720p?? This thing is going to be obsolete within a couple of years :(
rog27 @ May 19th 2006 11:51AM
Sony is really doing a terrible job of clarifying things for people...especially the joe-shmo consumer that hasn't a clue what any of these things mean.
No, you don't need HDMI to game or watch movies in 1080p (highest current resolution of HD). You can use a component input for the next 4-6 years and be fine. ICT (Image Constraint Token) is a software-implemented layer on a Blu-ray Disc or HD DVD that can downscale the resolution if a secure digital connection is not present. All of the movie studios that produce content for Blu-ray disc have included a clause that says they have agreed to not implement ICT before 2010 and no later than 2012. So for 4 to 6 years, your PS3 will function as a 1080p outputting bluray movie player. It will always function as a 1080p outputting game player, regardles of what the movie studios do. By the time movie studios implement ICT, you will be able to pick up a dedicated Bluray player for about 50 bucks.
This whole deal with regards to lack of HDMI in the 500 dollar unit is unfounded nonsense.
Octin @ May 19th 2006 11:53AM
What people don't understand is HD-DVD is only primarily backed by two companies Microsoft and Toshiba, how many movies has microsoft or toshiba released? BluRay however i backed by sony pictures, MGM which has an insane movie library, and FOX entertainmen. Those are just the announced companies.
All in All i think the next gen disc format race is stupid, but microsoft has hills to climb if it thinks its going to win that race.
PS3 is going to sell insane amounts anyway, microsoft is doing terrible in japan and its obvious ps3 will be right behind the WII over there. The ps3 is pretty damn expensive, but if the games are anything like ps2's it will still sell alot, despite being $600.
KingOfGods @ May 19th 2006 11:53AM
Why add an optional component to the price of the 360 to justify the high price of the PS3. I?m not a Sony basher; I own all current gen systems and in 3 years will probably own a PS3. The beauty of the 360 is that it gives you a choice if you want to spend the money on a new DVD format and aren?t forcing you to adopt new tech that IMHO consumers do not need. HD-DVD and Blueray are here to satisfy the big wigs in the movie industry because of piracy issues with current gen tech and to boost sales.
I?m sure the PS3 will have great games in its life span, but I can?t (and many others) afford to drop $600 (you have to spend that much if you plan on using the full features of Blueray in a year?s time) on a gaming console?.no a computer that plays games (because Sony doesn?t consider it a gaming console).
As far as Xbox 360 Live goes, if you find $50 a year too much to spend on a service like Live with it?s great community and features but are willing to drop about $800 ($600 console, $120+ on 2 games, $50 on a 2nd controller, and taxes) on the PS3 at launch.
Check out what?s available now and wait for a price drop on the PS3. I?m sure it will be amazing but I?m sure it will be even better saving a couple of hundred bucks.
tiremfej @ May 19th 2006 11:54AM
To #28:
Shortsighter? Are you kidding me $ony is ripping people off with this tihng. What if blu-Ray doesn't take? It's not even more powerful than the 360, (at least in developers eyes) and from what I saw at E3, the games look no better. $ony needs to get it's head out of it's ass. Maybe it is a luxury consumer good, but truthfully, why would you want it if only a small precentage of people are going to purchase it? I for one could care less about this offering from $ony, it's not even a blip on my radar. There are many thing's I'd rather spend $650, and that's without any games...like perhaps a new 25" flat panel so I don't have to only play my 360 in the living room. Face it $ony has gone mad with this pricing scheme. Save your $650, well, $745 af ter you purchase a game, and ejoy your brick by $ony, becuase if Blu-Ray doesn't catch on, you're all screwed. Seems like an expensive gamble to me.
KawF @ May 19th 2006 12:02PM
It would appear that many here are confused on what HDMI actually is good for. The only reason you might want HDMI on your PS3 is if you wish to watch blu-ray movies from studios such as Warner (i think it was) that are going to use ICT in order to force a downsample of the MOVIE image.
For you gamers, all I can say is, does you Xbox360's have HDMI? no... So how can they then output HD-resolution games? Because you CAN transfer HD (as in GAMES) over analog connections such as on the 20GB PS3 and the Xbox360.
As Sony has said multiple times, if you are a gamer and don't care much for watching blu-ray movies on your PS3, then go with the 20GB version. But if you want to be sure that you will get the full HD-experience in MOVIES, and MOVIES only, than you should buy the 60GB version.
apoc06 @ May 19th 2006 12:04PM
#18 and 20: First of all, blu-ray can be viewed in 1080p via component. Unless the ICT flag is set, you wont have any problems. via /very good/ component cables, you will be able to game and view video in 1080p. [the x360 does not support 1080p output at all which is why you cant get 1080p output via the x360, independent of your cables. ]
Gaming is not affected AT ALL by HDCP. If you plan to NEVER watch a blu-ray movie, you can still play games at 1080p on the core version.
With the exception of one studio thats begrudgingly forced to adhere to the majority decision, no one in the blu-ray camp even wants to use the ict. The hd-dvd camp wants to use it from day one.
Personally, I'm not sold on the movie aspect of blu-ray, either. I do like blu-ray as a storage medium, however. Who doesnt like the idea of a scratchproof disk that can hold 25-50-100+ gigs? If sony fails to sell a single blu-ray movie, I could care less. As long as developers have the room to add more content to the games I purchase, I could care less if blu-ray tech is only limited to just gaming.
KilgoreTrout XL @ May 19th 2006 12:06PM
I don't think Sony can effectively rationalize the price of its console simply by comparing the pricepoint of its PS3 blu-ray player to those of stand-alone models.
Sony needs to first explain why the technology itself- in isolation- is desirable, and then show incentive to the consumer by explaining how he or she can gain entry to that technology through the PS3 at bargain rates.
TMoney @ May 19th 2006 12:06PM
DBX00
just doesn't get it. If sony is indeed positioning the PS3 as a luxury item it may work, but they aren't. The simple fact is they are taking a loss on each unit at $600. That means they have to sell to the masses to make up the loss of the console on software sales. If on the rich can afford it, how much software will they sell? Then if they are not selling software, who will develop more software? If more great games are not coming out what is the incentive for people to pick up a PS3 down the road? This is a huge gamble for Sony and I believe they are going to learn the same expensive lessen that the 3DO and Neo Geo learned. No company has ever been succesful with a console that did not target the parents (through the children) of middle america. I know my Mom would not have even considered the PS3 over a 360 (if I could have even convinced her to spend that much, getting the SNES was hard enough). The reason is 100% on price. Its sad but, I see the PS3 going down as a spectacular failure.
jron's an idiot @ May 19th 2006 12:07PM
to #30:
You're a liar! You don't have a PS3 yet, even if you did, you'd know that the beautiful concave shape makes it impossible for it to be used in such a way.
You're probably just pissed because you spend $400 on an xbox 1.1 and you wish you had saved your money and invested it so by the time Sony finally decides to sell the PS3s they manufactured for last spring's original release, you'd have enough to afford the new coming of the messiah.
You and your dog will probably be first in line to buy the new PS3 anyways.
And by the way, if you're looking for a console that can actually do that for you, the Wii's remote seems shaped right.
PS3 is the best ever!!!!!!!!!!!! Ken Kuturagi is right, it's too cheap! A system that good should cost $1,000. I'd gladly buy 3 of them at that price. It has blu-ray! Sony is perfect.
clearskin @ May 19th 2006 12:07PM
I think ManOwaR makes a good point. The real initial cost of the system, when you consider that no one is going to buy it without any games, comes out to around $800.
Most gamers don't have that kind of cash to drop, and most parents don't spoil their children to that degree. Yes, there will be enough wealthy early adopters to probably keep initial sales high, but Sony is not aiming this product at gamers, but rather tech junkies with cash to spare. I have to agree that this system is about winning the media war via BlueRay, not satisfying Sony's game-playing fanbase.
Spaced @ May 19th 2006 12:07PM
@king of gods
You think 50 bucks a year isn't too much(by the way, that is the cheapest price plan)???
Lets assume that the 360 sticks around for 5-6 years(the standard) before the next incarnation. That's 250-300 bucks.
Add that to the price of the 360 and tell me what it comes to...
The fact is that joe schmoe nongamer looking to buy a new system doesn't know he needs that hard drive or that live service when he goes out shopping for his kid's 360. But when his kid tries to go online with GRAW or play the next madden game that requires a hard drive, joe schmoe has to shell out more cash. It's a smart marketing trick to leave out features on a system to lower the price then make people pay more than the competition charges for the full package in order to upgrade. It's ethically unsound but it rakes in the dough. Heck, the great innovation of the Live service that Moore was talking about was that they took what pc users have had for free for over a decade and charged money for it. And this micro content crap that they are really pushing is gonna hurt us gamers in more ways than just the wallet. They are going to gut games of content that should be there originally in order to make more money.
superguido @ May 19th 2006 12:08PM
Do most HDTV's have the ability to do 1080p yet? As I understand it most HDTV's dont, so the idea that the HDMI is a huge, huge issue doesn't really ring true to me.
And a high end HDTV with 1080p support is so expensive that I can't imagine someone with the money to buy this would blink at the extra $100 it would cost to buy a PS3 with the ability to support it.
Of course, it obviously won't matter to most people in general because most people don't have HDTV's. I'm not going to buy a PS3 immediately, but when I do I can't imagine I'll have the money for an HDTV as well.
spike @ May 19th 2006 12:10PM
We still have not heard if we have to crack open the PS3 in order to put a new hard drive, and if so, if it voids the warranty. "You can put in any drive that you like - it is a computer, after all." sounds like "You ca put in it any hole you want." and we all know what follows that...disaster.
Rat Bastards!
Canadian Geese @ May 19th 2006 12:11PM
actually... the way blu-ray is designed, you can only go as high as 1080i without an HDMI cable. blu-ray players upscale the image to 1080p if an HDMI cable is present, but without an HDMI it will go as high as 1080i, unless the studio has implemented the ICT for that disk.
Yes, it is very possible to send a 1080p signal over components, but not with blu-ray. Blu-ray only sends 1080p with HDMI.
I can't find any articles to support this, but read the tech description of any blu-ray player out there, they will all say the same thing...
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000DZS0G8/102-9712217-3775314?v=glance&n=172282
DBX00 @ May 19th 2006 12:13PM
The point is that Blu Ray will catch on because it's in the PS3 and backed by all the major movie studios. After you sell 6 million devices (by March 2007) that utilize the technology, it's hard for a study to justify ignoring the format for releases. The major question is how quickly will consumers pick up HD movies from stores and at what price. If you want to wait for the battle to be decided, that's fine. The point of the matter is that Sony will get your money today or tomorrow, but at some point you WILL have a PS3 sitting in your living room. They really don't care if you buy the device today or 3 years down the line because the gross margin remains the same. It helps to segment their buyers into groups because it allows for sustainable growth. The one thing that Microsoft had going for them was the early release. However, an early release is only good if you can get the product out the door and have developers produce better quality games to battle the onslaught of the superior technology will have later on in the lifecycle. In my opinion, anyone who purchased an XBOX 360 took the same type of gamble that PS3 purchasers will take on Blu Ray. However, with all the major movie companies backing it I don't see that as much of a gamble.
Paul P. @ May 19th 2006 12:16PM
Do you really need HDMI for HD? If so I'm in trouble, because my HDTV doesn't have HDMI ports.
Brian @ May 19th 2006 12:17PM
Alot of comments seem to be in the "BluRay might not catch on" vein. To this I must respoond that even if they never released a single BluRay movie (despite it being the technologically superior format) BluRay is still the perfect media for video games. This is a disc with up to 200GB of storage capacity. Developers can use this real estate so that they can keep HD data relatively uncopmpressed. This saves clock cycles and allows the processor to devote more time to physics processing. In the next 3 years we are going to see the PS3 put more objects on screen than we thought possible. If something like Assassin's Creed was done this early I can't wait to see what developers will be doing 6 years from now when the PS3 will be hitting it's prime.
Todd H. @ May 19th 2006 12:19PM
Of course Sony's online will be free, but you'll have to pay the publishers monthly fees to play their games online. For example, you'll have to pay EA a monthly fee to play Madden online, just like with the PS2...
I'd prefer to pay a flat rate and play most of the games for free, I know some publishers are charging LIVE users, but I typically don't play any of those games anyway...