I remember someone mentioned to me a long time ago that they think Sony has a whole pile of old hard drives and they are using the PS3 to get rid of them.
You know what, I think they may have a point. We have had 20GB, 40GB, 60GB and 80GB PS3’s so far and now it is being rumoured that we need to keep an eye out for 120 or 160GB models coming soon.
In all honesty it’s getting a bit idiotic now, pick a size and stick with it please.
Mole: 80GB PS3 dead, 120-160GB with Dual Shock 3 incoming
Last Updated: January 29, 2008
Banana hammock
January 29, 2008 at 08:25
I don’t agree, it’s irrelevant what size the HDD is. Yes it’s a problem if each SKU has different abilities (like BC), but just having different HDD sizes is fine.
After all you can put any HDD you want in there. If they have stockpiles of HDDs lying around then they should use them in the PS3s, why not?
Evilredzombie
January 29, 2008 at 08:54
I agree as well… the only diff is the abilities. The hdd can be changed on any ps3..
LazySAGamer
January 29, 2008 at 08:59
1. 20GB didn’t have half the features
2. 40GB has no backwards compatibility
3. 60GB had software/hardware BC depending on area
4. 80GB only released in certain areas.
Sony doesn’t have the best track record in only changing hard drive sizes. It is also dissapointing to early adopters, why should I buy a 40GB now when I can get a 160GB in 2 months for the same price.
Coming from a single SKU with the PS2 to this many seems to have caused them some problems
Banana hammock
January 29, 2008 at 09:17
I agree that all the other changes are a problem. Not the 80gb though.
As for us early adopters, i don’t feel dissapointed. Everything in technology is like that. Why should i buy a HDTV now when i 6 months there will be a better model for less?
I want it now, not in 2 months, and i am happy to pay a premium for it. That’s how tech is, and probably why we love it so mush 🙂
Abe
January 29, 2008 at 09:33
Yup, I dont see the problem either!
Evilredzombie
January 29, 2008 at 10:07
Well actualy we got 60GB then the 60 GB phased out to make space for 40GB
we never got and never will get the 80GB
And I dont know if Sa ever saw the 20 GB? can any one confirm?
Il sell my 60 gig if the 160 comes out and has BC, memcard readers… the amount of usb connectors doesnt bother me … oh and id love a white one..
JimBob
January 29, 2008 at 10:45
Dropping BC is a big deal, but revising the size of the hard drive is no biggie. Remember, you can replace the PS3 drive with a cheap and standard laptop HDD anytime you want to, so the size of the drive doens’t matter all that much.
Why shouldn’t Sony pass on some extra value to the consumer as technology prices drop? All fair enough. And the argument about screwing early adopters is moot – technology always marches on, becoming cheaper and better, so early adopters are always getting screwed.
Because I’m an early adopter, I paid R4500.00 to import an Xbox 360 without HDMI, and a 20Gb proprietary hard drive that can only be replaced at great expense. Swings and roundabouts – you can either deny yourself, with the understanding that you’ll get a better deal down the line, or jump in at the moment you feel you want the console.
LazySAGamer
January 29, 2008 at 11:00
@JimBob, I personally feel there is a difference between optimising the technology in a product and changing it. I became more of a console gamer because I wanted to stop having to worry about versions and upgrades and all that nonsense.
JimBob
January 29, 2008 at 12:15
But the size of the hard drive doesn’t make any difference – it’s like it getting pedantic about the size of memory sticks.
Jinja
January 29, 2008 at 14:31
I think its an excellent idea.
I don’t give a poo if they release another 300 versions…
hilt_ctn
January 29, 2008 at 15:20
How many versions of the Xbox are there now ? 4 as well if memory serves ( correct me if I’m wrong here )
The barebones model.
The reworked barebones now called the Xbox Arcade.
The regular 20GB Xbox
The Xbox Elite.
And the rumour mill is still turning about the Ultimate edition ? SKU changes are always going to happen
LazySAGamer
January 29, 2008 at 15:43
Yes but all of the 360 versions have the same features (apart from HDMI)… Every PS3 model change has fundamentally changed the feature set..
Abe
January 29, 2008 at 18:57
Lazy you talk about upgrades and the fact that as a console gamer you wanted to avoid this.
Well I think the 360 has actually had more done to it than the ps3 in terms of tech upgrades.
Falcon chips, revisted heat sinc’s etc!
LazySAGamer
January 29, 2008 at 19:11
@Abe, I have to completely disagree with you there. Granted they may have added a falcon chipset and improved the heat sink and even changed the DVD drive. However none of those changes made the slightest difference to the features offered by the Xbox 360.
No Xbox has had functionality removed from it
RivaZA
January 29, 2008 at 21:09
Actually Abe is right in a way. The Xbox has had more “tech upgrades” then the PS3. Considering the PS3 really has only got tech downgrades.
But don’t think for a second that the PS3 won’t get revised mainboards, Blu-ray drives, ect.
JimBob
January 30, 2008 at 13:53
I dunno, hey, the fact that one Xbox SKU has no hard drive has damaged the state of the games we get now more than anything Sony has done. Just consider the many technical flaws of Mass Effect, a great deal of which would’ve been a non-issue with a default hard drive.
The PS3 SKUs are confusing, and scrapping BC was a horrible decision, but all PS3s can play the same games and Blu_Ray movies, so I’m not sure what all the bitching is about. No one seems to be complaining about the fewer USB ports and missing memory card ports, unless I’m missing something? And those are thigns that have little bearing when a game is in the drive and a controller is in your hand.