Topic: The PS3 "Super Slim"

[tendoboy1984]

Is the new PS3 model replacing the current PS3 Slim? I hope not, cause it looks like a massive downgrade from what we currently have. The sliding, top-loading disc drive looks terribly cheap, and it pales in comparison to the smoothness of the current PS3's slot-loading drive.

The whole thing looks like a cheap, low-end DVD player. I'm surprised that Sony decided to downgrade the hardware even further just to cut costs. The damn thing doesn't even come with an HDMI cable (the Wii U does, ironically). I thought Sony had a penchant for quality products?

Typical of Sony to release an upgraded product that's inferior to its predecessor.

EDIT: Another thing I just realized, the new top-loading tray prevents people from storing the system in an entertainment center. Slot-loading drives are much more convenient and simple to use, which is why I'm glad the Wii U has one.


This is what the new PS3 Slim looks like:

[NWR_insanolord]

I don't believe the PS3 ever came with an HDMI cable. I know mine didn't.

[Chozo Ghost]

The damn thing doesn't even come with an HDMI cable

No PS3 model has ever came with an HDMI cable (as far as I know). So how is that a downgrade?

As for the slot loading drives, perhaps they are more convenient, but I don't like them because dust and **** can get in there and that can't be good for the system. When you have a lid that snaps shut it helps keep things inside clean and tidy.

Typical of Sony to release an upgraded product that's inferior to its predecessor.

That's typical of everyone. Look at the recent Wii revision with the Gamecube ports stripped out. Companies do this to shave off manufacturing costs.

[BranDonk Kong]

The slot loading drives are prone to failure and have way too many mechanical parts. The top loaders are easier to produce and you don't have to worry about ANY gears getting stuck which will make the entire drive inoperable. Another thing is that with the front-loaders there is no way to eject a disc when the console is off, or if it gets YLOD (most of the time), power failure, etc - so if (and when) your PS3 dies, you lose the game that's in it too unless you take it apart. This is a huge blessing in my eyes. I deal with broken consoles all day and lots of times people will have a YLOD or no-power console and they have opened it and removed the disc, which will in effect COMPLETELY screw up your Blu Ray drive. It's a pain in the ass to fix a YLOD system, then go to test it and realize that the owner had taken apart the BD-ROM and fucked it all up.

[broodwars]

The damn thing doesn't even come with an HDMI cable

No PS3 model has ever came with an HDMI cable (as far as I know). So how is that a downgrade?

I think my PS3 slim that I got a few years ago might have come with an HDMI cable, though I'm not sure.

As for the Super Slim, I don't see the point of them putting this out when people aren't exactly tripping over themselves right now to buy any of the existing consoles, but whatever.  All the companies have been guilty of putting out cheaper-to-manufacture "crappy" versions of their hardware at some point or another, so I don't really care about this one.  If it helps put Sony back in the black so they can continue publishing great games, fantastic.  If not, I don't see them being much worse off than they already are.

[tendoboy1984]

Guys, what I'm saying is that the PS3 should come with an HDMI cable as standard, since the console is built to take advantage of HDTVs. What's the point of selling an HD console with just SD cables? You aren't getting the full experience that way.

The Wii U comes with an HDMI cable, so at least Nintendo is doing something right.

[Chozo Ghost]

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2010081/new-playstation-3-console-slims-down-for-the-holidays.html

Here is a link about this new revision for those who are curious.

[BranDonk Kong]

I do agree that they should come with HDMI cables - but keep in mind that SONY would much rather sell you a $50 cable that costs $2 to make. If they include a "no thrills" (yes, I know that HDMI is HDMI is HDMI, there is essentially no difference between a $2 and $99 cable) that costs them $1 to make, and sell 5 million consoles that include it, then they just lost $5 million. There is zero benefit to include an HDMI cable - it won't cost them any console sales, makes their over-priced cables look more valuable to uninformed customers, and will help them sell a lot more of said over-priced cables.

[Chozo Ghost]

Guys, what I'm saying is that the PS3 should come with an HDMI cable as standard, since the console is built to take advantage of HDTVs. What's the point of selling an HD console with just SD cables? You aren't getting the full experience that way.

Not everyone has HD TVs (even now), and apparently the point of the revision is as a budget solution for those who don't already own a PS3. What's the point of selling an HD console with just SD cables? so people who only have SD TVs can use it. They aren't going to get the full experience, but its still a workable setup, and from Sony's perspective its more money in their pocket. Let's face it if someone hasn't already purchased a PS3 at this point they probably don't own an HD tv either. Why confuse them by tossing in a cable they won't even know what to do with? This budget revision is geared for the soccer grandmas and poor people who don't have HD.

[tendoboy1984]

Guys, what I'm saying is that the PS3 should come with an HDMI cable as standard, since the console is built to take advantage of HDTVs. What's the point of selling an HD console with just SD cables? You aren't getting the full experience that way.

Not everyone has HD TVs (even now), and apparently the point of the revision is as a budget solution for those who don't already own a PS3. What's the point of selling an HD console with just SD cables? so people who only have SD TVs can use it. They aren't going to get the full experience, but its still a workable setup, and from Sony's perspective its more money in their pocket. Let's face it if someone hasn't already purchased a PS3 at this point they probably don't own an HD tv either. Why confuse them by tossing in a cable they won't even know what to do with? This budget revision is geared for the soccer grandmas and poor people who don't have HD.

In that case, then Nintendo should have done the same thing with the Wii U. Have the Basic Set come with SD cables, and have the Deluxe Set come with an HDMI cable. But both bundles come with HDMI cables, meaning people without HDTVs won't be able to use it.


Those of us with HDTVs will have the best experience right out of the box, regardless of which bundle we buy. Kudos to Nintendo for being forward-thinking.

[tendoboy1984]

The slot loading drives are prone to failure and have way too many mechanical parts. The top loaders are easier to produce and you don't have to worry about ANY gears getting stuck which will make the entire drive inoperable. Another thing is that with the front-loaders there is no way to eject a disc when the console is off, or if it gets YLOD (most of the time), power failure, etc - so if (and when) your PS3 dies, you lose the game that's in it too unless you take it apart. This is a huge blessing in my eyes. I deal with broken consoles all day and lots of times people will have a YLOD or no-power console and they have opened it and removed the disc, which will in effect COMPLETELY screw up your Blu Ray drive. It's a pain in the ass to fix a YLOD system, then go to test it and realize that the owner had taken apart the BD-ROM and fucked it all up.

So based on your experience, do you think all DVD/Blu-ray players, PC's, laptops, etc. should have top-loading drives instead of sliding trays and slots?

[Adrock]

I have a PS3 slim which is working fine. I will, however, upgrade to this super-slim model way down the line when they're retailing for like $100 for the exact reason Brandogg mentioned. My PS3 is my DVD/Blu Ray player (it's only an occasional PS3 game player... I know...) so this would just be a newer, sturdier console for me.

I'm not terribly fond of the redesign, namely the return of the glossy finish and the lines on the top. However, my PS3 sits inside of an entertainment center and it's only seen when it's on because I keep the door open for ventilation. So, that's not an issue. Really, the only bad thing about this is the lack of a price drop, but it'll come eventually.

[tendoboy1984]

I don't like the design at all. The horizontal ridges on top don't mesh well with the smooth, shiny plastic on the sides. It's like Sony tried to combine the PS2 and PS3 designs, but the end result just looks tacky.

[Adrock]

As long as it gets the job done, I'm okay with it. Yes, I realize that it could easily be not tacky and get the job done, but anyone disregarding the entire thing because of looks is missing out.

[tendoboy1984]

As long as it gets the job done, I'm okay with it. Yes, I realize that it could easily be not tacky and get the job done, but anyone disregarding the entire thing because of looks is missing out.

The thing that bugs me is that Sony went back to the decades-old top-loading disc tray. The top of the new PS3 slides to the side, revealing a PS1/Dreamcast-style disc tray. I've always hated those types of trays, because it's much easier to just slide the disc into a slot-loading drive.


I'll keep my current PS3 Slim, until it eventually dies on me. Then I'll just buy a Wii U.

[Adrock]

The thing that bugs me is that Sony went back to the decades-old top-loading disc tray.

The slot loading drives are prone to failure and have way too many mechanical parts. The top loaders are easier to produce and you don't have to worry about ANY gears getting stuck which will make the entire drive inoperable.

I like slot loading drives because it makes me feel all futuristic, but I'd take a sturdier console any day of the week.

[tendoboy1984]

The best thing to do is not have any drive at all. Downloading everything to a hard drive or SSD (flash drive) is more beneficial to me, since I'll have all my content on the machine, and won't have to worry about scratched discs, broken disc drives, etc.

[Adrock]

That would be great and all... if Sony didn't have 6 years worth of PS3 disc based media. They tried redesigning hardware without the disc drive before with the PSP GO. It was a terrible idea then; it's a terrible idea now.

I'm hoping the generation after this next one will have card based media cheap enough to be viable. I like owning physical media and solves the problem of all the moving parts in a disc based system.

[tendoboy1984]

That would be great and all... if Sony didn't have 6 years worth of PS3 disc based media. They tried redesigning hardware without the disc drive before with the PSP GO. It was a terrible idea then; it's a terrible idea now.

I'm hoping the generation after this next one will have card based media cheap enough to be viable. I like owning physical media and solves the problem of all the moving parts in a disc based system.

But cards are more expensive to make than discs, which is why only handhelds use them. Making a 30GB game for a media card will cost a LOT of money, for the company and consumer.

[Adrock]

But cards are more expensive to make than discs, which is why only handhelds use them. Making a 30GB game for a media card will cost a LOT of money, for the company and consumer. I quoted your post but didn't really read it.

I'm hoping the generation after this next one will have card based media cheap enough to be viable. I like owning physical media and solves the problem of all the moving parts in a disc based system.

[BranDonk Kong]

The slot loading drives are prone to failure and have way too many mechanical parts. The top loaders are easier to produce and you don't have to worry about ANY gears getting stuck which will make the entire drive inoperable. Another thing is that with the front-loaders there is no way to eject a disc when the console is off, or if it gets YLOD (most of the time), power failure, etc - so if (and when) your PS3 dies, you lose the game that's in it too unless you take it apart. This is a huge blessing in my eyes. I deal with broken consoles all day and lots of times people will have a YLOD or no-power console and they have opened it and removed the disc, which will in effect COMPLETELY screw up your Blu Ray drive. It's a pain in the ass to fix a YLOD system, then go to test it and realize that the owner had taken apart the BD-ROM and fucked it all up.

So based on your experience, do you think all DVD/Blu-ray players, PC's, laptops, etc. should have top-loading drives instead of sliding trays and slots?

No. Actually most slot-loaders are non-problematic, but the PS3 has this massive, stupid (as in gears and "layers") drive. It's twice as thick as the Wii's DVD-ROM, but discs can be removed from the Wii DVD-ROM without causing any harm to the drive itself. Same with slot-loaders on laptops and whatnot. SONY just for some reason has always used this horrible designed BD-ROMs in every PS3 model, so to me the top-loader is a welcome change.

[ShyGuy]

that top texture makes it look cheap.

[tendoboy1984]

that top texture makes it look cheap.

Yes, and the sliding door is just a thin piece of flimsy plastic. What a way to lower the quality of an otherwise top-notch console Sony. The current PS3 Slim is much better built.

[Chozo Ghost]

In that case, then Nintendo should have done the same thing with the Wii U.

Keep in mind Nintendo is still selling the Wii. This is their "budget" offering geared towards the soccer grandmas. They don't need to make a watered down budget Wii U as long as the Wii continues to fill that role. When we get late into the Wii U's lifecycle there will probably be a revision which strips certain things out to shave off costs. But for now there is no need thanks to the Wii. Both Wii and Wii U will coexist on the market together for at least a year or two I would assume.

The best thing to do is not have any drive at all. Downloading everything to a hard drive or SSD (flash drive) is more beneficial to me, since I'll have all my content on the machine, and won't have to worry about scratched discs, broken disc drives, etc.

Until the hard drive fails, and then you're screwed. Especially when it happens years from now after PSN is shut down and you can't get it back.

I don't worry about scratched discs and you know why? Because I don't scratch them. I only pick them up from the edges, and when they aren't in the drive they go right back into the case where they belong. There is never a moment where I place my discs in danger of being scratched.

I have a PS3 slim which is working fine. I will, however, upgrade to this super-slim model way down the line when they're retailing for like $100 for the exact reason Brandogg mentioned.

You may have to wait awhile, assuming it ever even gets that cheap... which it might not. Where its at now in price might be rock bottom and it might not get any lower than that. Everyone seems to assume eventually every console falls to $99 in price, but that may not always be the case with every console. A HDD alone adds about $50 to the system's cost, so if you ever see it happen it will be on one which uses flash storage (like the Wii U or X360 Arcade).

Such a revision might even strip out the BRD like Tendoboy suggested. You said that's a terrible idea, but most retail games are available digitally on PSN these days. If Sony stripped that out as well as the HDD and just had flash storage they can probably get the cost down to $100. Otherwise, maybe not.

that top texture makes it look cheap.

People said that about the Slim too when it first came out, compared to the original Phat model. Sony doesn't do these revisions based on aesthetics. They do them to shave off manufacturing costs. So if they look cheap, that's the whole point, because they aren't going to come out with a gold plated gem encrusted model this late in the system's life.

[Adrock]

You may have to wait awhile, assuming it ever even gets that cheap... which it might not. Where its at now in price might be rock bottom and it might not get any lower than that. Everyone seems to assume eventually every console falls to $99 in price, but that may not always be the case with every console. A HDD alone adds about $50 to the system's cost, so if you ever see it happen it will be on one which uses flash storage (like the Wii U or X360 Arcade).

I'm prepared to wait. Like I said, this would be way down the line. I didn't put a time frame on it, but 2014/2015 might be a good time to replace my currently 3 year old PS3. Right now, my PS3 is functioning just fine. Even if Sony ceases production, they have to liquidate what's already produced. There's no guarantee that the price will drop that low, but I would bet on it. Sony likes to sell their previous generation hardware as a budget console.

And a hard disk drive does not add $50, especially not at the bulk price they're purchased at. Don't believe the hype. Sony and Microsoft are flat-out robbing people with those hard disk drive prices. If that's what you mean, then yes, the hard disk drive is driving up prices in a way. However, that's exactly how they'll be able to drop prices.

Such a revision might even strip out the BRD like Tendoboy suggested. You said that's a terrible idea, but most retail games are available digitally on PSN these days. If Sony stripped that out as well as the HDD and just had flash storage they can probably get the cost down to $100. Otherwise, maybe not.

Flash storage is significantly more expensive than a regular hard disc drive. Should Sony aim to lower the price, they wouldn't replace one of the console's least expensive parts with a vastly more expensive one. It also wouldn't make sense with the file sizes. I don't believe you can buy God of War 3 from the Playstation Store, but if you could, it'd be 35 GB (unless Sony compressed the hell out of it). Today, a 128GB solid state drive is roughly $250 (it would be less if Sony bought it in bulk for production). That will undoubtedly drop over time, but so will regular hard disk drives. Today, you can get a 1TB hard disk drive for less than $100.