Sony Style stores done with 20GB model
by Alexander Sliwinski 
{ Apr 5th 2007 at 9:55PM }
Hmmmmm, well this is certainly curious. Although there is no official word that the PlayStation 3's 20GB model is finished, the Sony Style stores haven't had them in stock for a long time and the SonyStyle.com mother ship is done with the model -- it's no longer listed on the site. We contacted SonyStyle.com and were told, "We haven't had it in stock for a month ... We're not getting any more. You could maybe go out and find one." Going to a Sony Style store isn't going to get you anywhere either. One store we called had the same story as SonyStyle.com. A sales representative said, "We haven't gotten those [20GB] models in for a long time. We have plenty of 60 gig models in stock." When asked if the model had been discontinued he said, "Not officially ... but we haven't seen any in a long time."Best Buy stopped carrying the 20 GB model last month. As of mid-March Sony told us the 20GB model was still being manufactured and that "retailers have been requesting the 60GB model, the mix has been about 80 percent 60GB, 20 percent 20GB retailer orders." Sony's own stores are part of that 80 percent now. Having two models of the PlayStation 3 is a nice gesture, but if a product is no longer being stocked by anyone, including Sony's own retail chain, does it really still exist?
[Thanks Jason]
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
arrrgh @ Apr 5th 2007 9:59PM
siigh that was fast
Deorum @ Apr 5th 2007 10:02PM
I don't think there's a lot of complaints out there. Nice job on trying to come out with Sony "issues" Joystiq! You gotta have some right?
Charron @ Apr 5th 2007 10:04PM
Who said it was an "issue"? It's simply news. Not everything has a slant.
gregory mitchell @ Apr 5th 2007 10:26PM
So much for that $500 debate. I dont see what the draw is. Most people probably will never use the card reader. and Down the line you can buy your own HDD. so IMO the 20GB seemed like the way to go. I guess a year from now when i get one ill have to get a used one.
Dolla Dolla @ Apr 6th 2007 2:08AM
Are Sony and Microsoft working together?
The 20gb disappears and is replaced with ... the Elite?
But, I thought I read somewhere that they were gonna release the 20gb in Europe around October or something?
So confused!
Aram @ Apr 5th 2007 10:32PM
actually I've never seen this often-rumored 20GB model anywhere... nor do I know anyone with it. so all I know is it doesn't exist! =)
Hikaru @ Apr 5th 2007 10:36PM
I found one at wal-mart...there are at least 2 more, I'll buy one this Saturday, maybe it will become a collectors item in the future! Maybe not...
Jon @ Apr 5th 2007 10:41PM
Shows that the true cost of entry for a PS3 is indeed $600. This doesn't bode well for a price drop anytime soon thats for sure.
synce @ Apr 5th 2007 10:45PM
Shame. If I was ever going to buy a PS3, it was going to be the 20gig. Looks like you won't be getting my money for a long while, if ever.
Kema @ Apr 5th 2007 11:06PM
I was told by a Gamestop employee about three weeks ago that they were sent notice by Sony that they would no longer be receiving any 20 gig models... Given how arrogant and certain Sony is that the plebs will rush out and worship their overpriced baby, is it really any surprise that they're pulling the economy model?
Chris @ Apr 5th 2007 11:20PM
My 20 gig is now a 120 gig i have no use for the SD slot, my TV has one built in and so does my laptop so dont care, i also have wired a ethernet outlet right behind the TV for my DVR and whatever else i will get in the future, so no need for Wi Fi dont have a ps3 the 20 gig was a great buy same technology better price
ackmondual @ Apr 5th 2007 11:26PM
Don't mean to turn this into a 360 vs PS3 bout, but after over a year, the 360 Core is still available. The 20GB PS3 has turned into the Cell Broadband Engine that couldn't.
Anonymous @ Apr 5th 2007 11:40PM
Sony's $400 package will now have the 60GB Hard Drive while the $450 package will carry the 80GB Hard Drive
ez054098 @ Apr 5th 2007 11:51PM
So is my 20 GB PS3 a collector's item?
jay @ Apr 6th 2007 1:33AM
im thinking they cut production of the 20gb until they finally bring the Euro model to America. If they were still making the 20gb, then they would be manufacturing 3 differnet models, so I think they stopped in order to simplify manufacturing. When the Euro model becomes the World model, the American/Japanese 60gb will be dead, and will make room for the $500 model again. This would explain the lack of an announcement stating the 20gb is dead because it's actually on hiatus.
Unit @ Apr 6th 2007 12:25AM
@#13 "So is my 20 GB PS3 a collector's item?"
No, it's next-gen!!!!lolololol
Aex @ Apr 6th 2007 12:53AM
I don't think it matters much, the internet calls the PS3 price $600 , hardly anyone ever refered to the $500 one. I would have bought a 20gb version, but I guess not now... Oh well :) I still have time for the price to drop XD
Jason @ Apr 6th 2007 1:09AM
It sucks to see the 20 gig version gone. I was checking SonyStyle to purchase one, but seeing as it was missing from their site and knowing that PS2's Emotion Engine is going to be removed in all PS3's to be manufactured from this month or next month and onward, I went ahead and bought the 60 gig version.
schlomo @ Apr 6th 2007 1:05AM
I'll take "discontinued" for 599 US DOLLA!!!, Alex.
DrJeff @ Apr 6th 2007 1:13AM
Am I the only one who gets a little bit of the "Neo-Geo Vibe" from the PS3?
I have nothing bad to say against the system except that it is simply too expensive. By getting rid of the $500 model they are just compounding this problem.
NoHitHair @ Apr 6th 2007 1:12AM
@11:
I actually was thinking the same thing. The Core model of the 360 still exists even launched about a year before the PS3.
Irrespective of cost or hardware comparisons, the fact that dual versions of a system release failed whereas the other succeeded can hardly be considered a triumph.
http://blog.myspace.com/nohithair
erac3rx @ Apr 6th 2007 2:43AM
Here's my guess: Sony is imminently going to start selling the 60gb PS3 for $499 in the US, just as soon as they can fill the channel with the new, cheaper-to-manufacture version that lacks the PS2 chip.
The 60gb models sitting on shelves will sell through insanely fast at $499, as people snap up the remaining ones that have the PS2 chip inside, creating a nice uptick in sales. After that, the PS3 has just one SKU for retailers to deal with, and it compares VERY favorably to the Elite 360 at $479 (or even the premium 360 at $399).
What do you guys think?
infinitespecter @ Apr 6th 2007 7:08AM
Glad I got mine in February. Even then, I had to drive all other southern California to get one (thus spending the difference I would have saved on gas and food). Still love it, and it is inheriting my MacBook Pro's 100GB HD when I upgrade it later this year. Gloss black over chrome anyday!
arman @ Apr 6th 2007 3:32AM
Don't you just wish that scenario would play out erac3rx. Good luck but you might have better luck waiting for hell to freeze over. But then again who knows in this business.
Just my $0.02.
arman @ Apr 6th 2007 3:36AM
I wonder if MS new awhile back that 20GB PS3 were going the wayside and that is what pushed them to introduce the Elite to fill that void. Is this brilliance on MS part or foolishness?
dsub @ Apr 6th 2007 3:58AM
the only place that I have seen with the 20GB models if the Sony outlet store south of Columbus in Jeffersonville, OH.
I was there about 3 weeks ago and they had a few "refurbished" ones for $449.99. I bought one. From what I hear though they are all gone.
NeverSage @ Apr 6th 2007 5:48AM
Good, I was sick of the argument that the PS3 isn't expensive because there is a $500 model (which is still too expensive, imo). Now it is final. The PS3 is too expensive for a gaming system.
Duoae @ Apr 6th 2007 8:12AM
Well, it makes sense that for Sony to be able to produce the PS3 with less BC in large quantities that they would have to either open up new production lines at new factories (something we've not heard in the news) or change existing production lines over to the new development. My guess is that it was more economically feasible to switch 20GB PS3 production lines to this new version first and then at a later date slowly switch over the more "expensive" original 60 GB PS3 lines.
Todd @ Apr 6th 2007 9:24AM
I don't know why Sony even bothered. The company knew from the get go, unless management really is that stupid, that the 20 GB PS3 model was so pointless and inferior compared to the 60 GB that nobody would really want to purchase one. Seriously, the comparison of the two is so large that anyone buying the 20 GB is getting screwed in the long run, and with no hardware upgrade options, will be left with a true inferior (albeit still somewhat expensive) experience.
Obviously the consumer is wise to this trickery, which explains why stores are no longer carrying the barely bought product.
mj @ Apr 6th 2007 9:30AM
"Here's my guess: Sony is imminently going to start selling the 60gb PS3 for $499 in the US, just as soon as they can fill the channel with the new, cheaper-to-manufacture version that lacks the PS2 chip."
Keep dreaming, they just can't afford it. There's a reason they throttled the quantity to begin with. They can't afford to lose THAT much money on consoles AND make PS3 games. The costs are HUGE, because none of their titles are cross-platform and their install base is tiny. Never mind that they won't make money on the ps3 until 2008 - they won't make money on the software for a while, either.
As for the Elite 360 - a lot of people are bashing it, but it does include an expensive cable. I just wish their hardware was more reliable. I want to get one for Christmas, but I'm going back and forth with the cost of accessories and the hardware failing.
mj @ Apr 6th 2007 9:36AM
"I don't know why Sony even bothered. The company knew from the get go, unless management really is that stupid, that the 20 GB PS3 model was so pointless and inferior compared to the 60 GB that nobody would really want to purchase one. Seriously, the comparison of the two is so large that anyone buying the 20 GB is getting screwed in the long run, and with no hardware upgrade options, will be left with a true inferior (albeit still somewhat expensive) experience.
Obviously the consumer is wise to this trickery, which explains why stores are no longer carrying the barely bought product."
Are you crazy, Todd? I didn't think the $600 model was worth it, since you can upgrade the hdd in the $500 and make it bigger than the $600 for less than $100. There's no way anyone should buy the $600 model. The HDMI output is the only difference worth paying for, but there aren't any movies that require it and hardly anyone has a TV that can show the difference in quality. And of course, you still need to shell out ~$50 for the HDMI cable, so it's really a $650 console at that point. But what am I saying? Fanboys flunk economics.
erac3rx @ Apr 6th 2007 9:46AM
Hmm. I'm told to "keep dreaming" about a price drop any time soon. I will, actually. Keep in mind that Sony has been selling the 20gb PS3 in Japan for the equivalent of $420 since the very beginning, and we know the 60gb doesn't cost much more to make. We also know that Sony is still making an insane amount of money on PS2 software and hardware sales. In my opinion what Sony has been doing with the PS3 price is simply to charge as much as they can early on, with the intention of dropping it quickly. Might as well soak the early adopters for as much as you can get, and once they've bought it drop the price--that's just good sense.
In my eyes what they can't afford is to sell them for $400. But they can afford to sell a 60gb for $499. Factor in just how much of the 'it's too expensive' talk goes away if you can buy a 60gb for that price and it's worth it.
Saneless @ Apr 6th 2007 9:50AM
What bullshit. Plenty of reports came out about how much better a deal the $500 machine was, Sony just doesn't want to lose EVEN MORE money, though if they were smart they'd be pimping the hell out of it. Especially with the Elite xbox, the $500 system doesn't look too bad. But for an extra $130 their 60GB still looks like a turd.
Jake @ Apr 6th 2007 10:06AM
When I eventually got a PS3 I had planned on getting the 20Gb. It works on the 360 for me. This is a bit disappointing because I don't need 60Gb. I'm kind of a games only guy; could care less about additional content. Although, reducing load speeds by installing games requires memory and is a nice feature. Okay, I'll get the 60Gb.
To be honest, I think the PS3 should have a "Core" system. Since the support any HDD, it would be easy to find something cheap to stick in there.
Jake @ Apr 6th 2007 10:08AM
Also, this move is occuring for two reasons.
1) The demand for the 60Gb version is simply much higher.
2) Sony was losing more money on the 20Gb version than the 60Gb version.
baby sea tuna @ Apr 6th 2007 10:45AM
Wait, when did they announce that future PS3s aren't going to be BC? Did I miss something? Do I need to go out and get one now, rather than wait for rumble and/or a price drop?
Joshua @ Apr 6th 2007 12:14PM
baby sea tuna (#36), the PS3 originally had the newer version of the slim PS2's Emotion Engine + Graphics Synthesizer (EE+GS) chip, which allowed it to have extensive (but not complete) backward compatibility with PS1 and PS2 games. The new PS3s (the European model, and the soon-to-be American and Japanese models) uses software emulation, like the Xbox 360, for backward compatibility, and lacks the EE+GS chip. Therefore, the BC is FAR worse, with most games having at least SOME problems, with many games not being playable at all.
Basically, if you care about BC, then get a PS3 now.
Zamfir @ Apr 6th 2007 12:40PM
Good riddance... Going multi-SKU is stupid, something Microsoft would do. A console is a single platform, there should only be ONE model! If you don't want to pay that much for a console, buy a 360. Simple.
There should only be one PS3 model. The 20GB version was stupid, and I correctly predicted it would fade from store shelves quickly...
Ryan LN @ Apr 6th 2007 12:42PM
I don't think you're dreaming, erac3rx. I would submit that Sony can't afford to *not* have a price cut, giving the lukewarm reception that the machine has received from the non-hardcore buying public, and to the crucial spot the PS3 occupies in their larger plan to make Blu-Ray the default format for high definition playback. There is no doubt that the sale a 800 bajillion PS2s helped solidify the DVD market the way mortar helps build a wall, and I imagine part of their long term strategy is to do the same with the PS3. While the company hasn't been kicking ass as a whole lately, they still have billions in assets and can afford to cover the relatively small losses vs. future earnings posed by a $100 price cut, esp. as manufacturing costs shrink over the course of time. As a self-professed platform agnostic, the PS3 remains as the last console purchase I have to make this generation, having had my 360 for over a year and my Wii for several months. However, the PS3's lack of truly compelling software in combination with the current $600 wallet-raping (not to mention the fact that I'm very happy with 360's online interface) makes me hesitant to part with money that I could be foolishly squandering on food and heat. A price reduction of the sort you speak would just help move the decision to get one from the "man, that's almost half my monthly mortgage payment ever closer to the "impulse buy" category. And that could only help Sony and the industry as a whole.
why not the LS2/LS7? @ Apr 6th 2007 12:56PM
I don't get the gripes.
Stores aren't stocking it because people aren't buying it. And I'm supposed to wonder if customers are losing out because the 20GB isn't out there?
Here's my story of getting a PS3 (back when they were tough in early December).
A friend was going around to stores looking for a Wii. He wouldn't even call because places would like. So he drove to stores. He'd drive to 10-15 stores a day. After about a week of this, he comes across a 20GB PS3. He bought it and told me he has it. I can't play it because of work, but I do go out to the store. I get two games a 2nd controller and an HDMI cable ($15 one, not ripoff one). Total for the games and accessories: about $200. I already had a 2GB MS Pro Duo I got really cheap that I was using in my camera.
So I get the PS3, and I can't bear to open it. Why do I want to get the cheap model to save $100 when the cost of accessories and games has shown the cost of ownership is going to be really high anyway? Why settle for 2nd best to save the cost of 1.5 games? It seemed like false economy to me.
I had to leave town for an emergency, and while I'm in the Dallas airport on a layover, I get a call from my friend. Now he's found a 60GB unit, do I want it instead? He has another friend who would take the 20GB off me.
So I trade him and pay the extra $108.25 (tax) and get the 60GB.
I have to imagine there are a lot of people out there who feel the same as me, even though by all accounts, the 20GB is a great unit. I don't use WiFi, I have a memory stick save game card and I already had scored a SATA 100GB 2.5" HDD free from a friend to upgrade the HDD. Even though I don't need the 60GB, I can't see being without it to save that little.
Maybe this reads like a story of a guy with too much money, I dunno. But right now, I think the market for 360 and PS3 already skews towards spendthrifts, the $100 cheaper SKU isn't going to be a big seller.
Once people start buying PS3 more because of a value proposition (i.e. when there are more games to play), I think the 20GB will make a comeback.
My local Target, which had a 20GB up until about two weeks ago, never seemed to stock 360 core units. Gamestop sure does though.
chris_in3 @ Apr 6th 2007 3:25PM
31. "I don't know why Sony even bothered. The company knew from the get go, unless management really is that stupid, that the 20 GB PS3 model was so pointless and inferior compared to the 60 GB that nobody would really want to purchase one. Seriously, the comparison of the two is so large that anyone buying the 20 GB is getting screwed in the long run, and with no hardware upgrade options, will be left with a true inferior (albeit still somewhat expensive) experience.
Obviously the consumer is wise to this trickery, which explains why stores are no longer carrying the barely bought product."
Are you crazy, Todd? I didn't think the $600 model was worth it, since you can upgrade the hdd in the $500 and make it bigger than the $600 for less than $100. There's no way anyone should buy the $600 model. The HDMI output is the only difference worth paying for, but there aren't any movies that require it and hardly anyone has a TV that can show the difference in quality. And of course, you still need to shell out ~$50 for the HDMI cable, so it's really a $650 console at that point. But what am I saying? Fanboys flunk economics.
----RESPONSE----
Why are people so misinformed. Anyway, the 20 GB does come with an HDMI port, and it DOES have the ability to upgrade its hard disk. I have one, i should know. I bought it during the initial american launch. errr...this stuff is so simple...Remote Play with the PSP has now been enabled with the 20 GB model. I don't need card slots, or WIFI card (i use a wireless bridge) so i saved money and received all the major benefits of the PS3.