PS3 Slim: Hot or not?
CNET Poll
You've seen the photos and you've read the review, but how do you feel about the the PS3 Slim's design? The Slim is 33 percent smaller and 36 percent lighter than the older PS3s but it is now noticeably deeper than before.
The CNET New York office seems to be split down the middle. Some editors think it reminds them of a turntable, while others think it's a slick improvement. Editor Scott Stein sees the console's wideness as odd, while Justin Yu thinks the black matte has a vintage appeal.
There are varying reports from around the Internet as well. Dave Zatz said in his post Meet the PS3 Slim, now with more ugly!: "But this PS3 Slim with textured matte surface reminds me of some old plastic outdoor furniture we used to have. Or maybe a Foreman grill knockoff."
Whichever way you slice it, this new PS3 Slim is here to stay and it'll be the only one available once the current stock of PlayStation 3s are sold out. So what do you think? Is the new PS3 Slim hot or not?
Before covering games and gear for CNET Reviews, Jeff Bakalar dabbled in film and video production. An avid writer, reader, and gamer, Jeff is also an obsessive New Jersey Devils hockey fan. Catch him live every day as the co-host of CNET's infamous podcast, The 404. 
Did all the Xbox fanboys at CNet break down and cry when the 300 dollar PS3 Slim was revealed?
I don't think they have any clue that gaming sites all over the Net are laughing their ***** off over the barrage of Xbot damage control articles being pumped out from CNet desperately tying to put a dent in the mass hysteria the PS3 Slim is generating in the console world.
Wow are you a drama queen. Xbox fans breaking down and crying and mass hysteria in the console world. Get a grip please. A constructive comment would be something like. Yes it is ugly compared to the old one but it will be nice to not have something that shows every fingerprint and gets dirty after a day.
Why? If you already have PS2 games, I'm assuming you already have a PS2???
2 or 3 games..? I'd like to invite you to take a look at PS3's exclusive catalog.
Uncharted, Motorstorm, Heavenly Sword, MGS4, resistance 1&2...etc.... I just outdid your 2-3 games in 3 seconds
PS3 may be in 3rd for now, but no one can doubt the lasting power of PLAYSTATION.
Don't forget the PS2 was still kickin while the XBOX 360 was being launched, and the PS3 has not even unlocked 50% of it's true potential.... It's only a matter of time.
I do prefer the original body, but the price point is a welcome change! I might have to buy a second one for my bedroom! =)
Microsoft better get its design engineers lined up to get a new redesigned 360 onto the market.
Also, now i might just buy a PS3 just to have a second console.
That said, I think the real problem has always been price and so kudos to Sony for FINALLY deciding to take their heads out of the sand on that front...(Its not like anyone has ever suggested a significant price drop before...wink wink). Still, I really don't understand why they can't create a "budget" model as MS has done for so long. Let me have a PS3 for $200 and we might be talking... as my rant below will show, I can't justify a console switch considering my accumulation of 360 games.
So, does this price change do anything for me, a member of the gadget loving, buying public? Eh...maybe, down the road, but like I said, I've got a lot invested in the 360. After all, while Sony was busy putting out an admittiedly nice console at a relatively high price, I was busy buying games and establishing myself on the XBOXlive scene.
Now, i've got pretty much all the next gen console games that I want and I see no real reason to make the switch over to the PS3. Sure, I like new gadgets, but the Sony switch would require a huge re-investment in the PS3 games and for what? The graphics MAY be a teensy bit better, but that's been less of an issue for me then the quality of the game play itself which from everything I've seen would be identical on both consoles.(I.e. the game makers control the game play, not the consoles). Plus, as a die hard fan of the FPS genre I really don't spend much time admiring the architecture in the games I play. I'm too busy blasting my opponents.
Hence, IF the PS3 had been sold at this price, en masse at the beginning of the next gen console wars, it would have been a real contender for my money. Combined with Sony's free version of Xbox live I might have seriously looked their way.
Now, I have little or no reason to make the switch...sorry Sony, but my guess is that you're a little too little too late to try and win over the pre-existing 360 owners like me.
As for not purchasing a PS3 because of the amount you have invested in your 360, you do realize that you won't have to give up your 360 if you purchase a PS3. And there are after all some pretty good exclusives on the PS3 and it does work nice as a Blu Ray player if you don't already have one. If you can afford it it's nice to have both. I do and don't regret either purchase.
The same old retread argument of the rrod is fine for those who dont really have a better argument or feel perticularly attached to their gaming console, something that is fun and useful but ultimately devoid of any real value.
I still contend that how much money you have sunk into a system should not have a bearing on whether you a purchase another system. The original system can continue to be used even after the new system is purchased having no affect on the money spent previously on the old system.
However, to point out that the $340 dollars spent on the new system and controller is money that can't be spent on games is fair and a legitimate reason why not to purchase a new system if your not interested in its exclusives or in this case a Blu Ray player.
BTW, I left out the cost of the game above, because you can't say "I wouldn't spend the money on a game for this system, so that I can save money for a game that costs the exact same on another system." There is no net money saved.
I just went and added up all the reviews (I used IGN.com. Other sites will vary a little, but not enough to choose one over another) and for 577 reviewed games, the PS3 is averaging 7.33, while the 360's 912 reviewed games is at a 7.15 average.
And for the sake of saying my allegiance, I prefer the PS3, though I own both.
As to those who are currently crying to their respective mothers about how I said something that COULD be taken as disparaging against their beloved PS3 I don't have much to say. Your mommies will hold you and give you "the bitty" and you can be #1...not #2 and you'll feel better.
Contrary to some of the amazingly vicious commentaries, I am actually not a Microsoft funded troll. Even more shockingly, I actually like some Sony products; I've found that their music players produce stellar sound quality and I really like their cameras and the PSP.. The thing, is that brand loyalty is not what it once was. In todays world, a manufacturer can produce an A+ product one day and then a stinker the next.
I really don't care whether my console is made by Microsoft, Nintendo or Sony I really don't. What does matter to me is whether I enjoy playing games on that console. In regards to my analysis (personal decision guys and gals) about whether I want to plunk down any money for a PS3 is based on this simple determination;
Is there any benefit to playing COD2,3,4,5 on the PS3 over the 360? A: Possible some graphical benefit, though not guarunteed; The PSNetwork is free so there would be an annual savings of roughly $50.00over Xboxlive . Now, are these benefits worth switching from a perfectly good console, and having to buy the SAME GAMES all over again? A: If we stick to the #s and I look at the approx. cost of the games (I'll say $15, $20, $40 and $50 just for the COD collection) then unless you value the POSSIBLE graphical benefits, you come out spending $75 right off the bat in duplicate game purcahses. (BTW I do play all 4 current titles and more). Further, I've owned 3 360s so far. The first one I sold and is now 3 years old and going strong with no problems (According to its new owner) . The second Elite got the RROD and was replaced 2 year ago for free with a unit that is functioning fine so far...so i don't buy into the argument that 360s spend more time in the shop than in the living room.
Additionally, Its not like I can simply pop my 360 game disc into the PS3...soooo...that means buying the same game I already own and love, all over again simply to get the "PS3 Experience". For me this is the 360 investment makes a PS3 purchase based solely on the desire to own a PS3...not any other financial benefit or significant graphical benefit (If there is one).
Honestly, you can only play one console at a time and I cannot for the life of me see why I would go from COD on the 360 to COD on the PS3. As far as exclusives go...ok fine...therein may lie a reason to get one...if the exclusives are good enough... but for me the re-playability is really in the online multiplayer. Thats where 98% of my video game playing time is spent, so while the exclusives are all well and good, they may not equate to stellar online multiplayer play.
Further, and I know I am probably going to be labeled the devil for saying this but...I DON'T CARE ABOUT HD FORMATS!!!!!!!
That is, everyone adds to the PS3 mix the ol' "It has a great Blu-Ray player too so the price is worth it". See, while, the tech world has tried to convince me that I need to plotz myself over "High definition" I just don't care about it. Every human that I've ever seen in HD looks weird and the animated shows look strangely "Glowy" . With the exception of sporting events I can honestly say that I never watch anything in 720 or 1080 hd. Hence, for me, the blu ray player functionality is merely something I'd rarely if ever use...and hence I have no need to pay for its added cost.
My feeling is that Sony may derive satisfaction from knowing that they FINALLY won a format war. The sad part is, I don't think the world cares as much as it did with previous format wars. Plus, with physical media becoming passe, my guess is that Sony's victory will be short lived. (See: MS, Sony's + moves towards providing down loadable entertainment/gaming content).
End rant: Begin momma's boys squeeling:
You have the first amendment right to the freedom of speech and both of your claims are legitimate to your sole being, ie in your situation and for the lack of a better word, "it makes perfect sense to you".
It so occurs that most of the people care about being under the "next gen cloud" solely because of HD, because both of this consoles advertised as providing better graphics and being able to broadcast or reproduce HD content.
Your argument is head on bashing the ps3 although you try to sell some objective about the subject. The fact is that you can buy the ps3 for its exclusives and play your already owned 360 games on your its respective console.
You were absolutely right though about something, if sony would have placed the ps3 since the start at this price or at least close to what the 360 cost, i could be very sure that the story would have been written differently but i have news to you, technology costs money. Microsoft recycled technology from the last gen (DVD, GHZ controlers (not bluetooth)) and pretty much made the device a puzzle for consumers to build it up the way they wanted (all of it being recycled technology), made the hard drive swappable but there is a cath (is only made by microsoft) which is no good news. They charge 100 dollars plus tax which is extraterrestrial when it comes to hd prices (you could get a 250 for 89 in amazon or a 500 for 130). so basically the monopolized that, on top of all they also charge a premium 50 a year to be able to play online (i would say is not much, but then is not free...... go figure)
so then in the other hand, you have sony trying to make this next gen with an actual next gen console.
They spent in the cell processor, they spent on blue-ray. they spent making wifi out of the box, bluetooth to connect controllers and peripherals that unlike microsoft (and this is for the ear pieces) can be had from any manufacture, the built motion control to their controller (although i did find the feedback better), got a slot loading and touch sensitive buttons, car reader and free internet gaming. lost 200 and some change in every console sold (cost 800 was sold for 599) and all you guys do is complain?
if you can afford it fine, thats one thing, but this thing is not expensive because sony is robing you, is just expensive. Obviously a cheaper price conducts to a greater volume ie (wii sales and DS sales), but cutting the price is a process, not a granted wish. They need to lower manufacturing, work on redesigns and all that and its time consuming.
I will agree with you on not buying a ps3, they way you put it makes perfect sence, but the way i see it, just use both for what they have to offer, i have both and play each exclusives. Like the ps3 for some task, like the 360 for others (had have 3 already) and lately being leaning towards my ps3 more, why ( E X C L U S I V E S )
if you see the catalog, youll see there are many things going for the ps3 and besides its new price, are its games.
You will see microsoft lowering the 360 to 250 because there is no way they can make a side by side comparison with the ps3 to justify its (the 360's $299) price, the 360 has been sold for a price over what it cost, why? ask Microsoft. I did pay lots of money for my ps3, about 679 for the first model with 60 GB, and i know it was worth it.
Which console is better is a subjective thing, there will never be a clear winner, but as of value and quality, please, be sure that the ps3 offers more for your bang than a 360 can dream of...........
Now you run to your mummi and ask her "why didn't you graduate and got a better job so that you could buy these things for me since im fat and i don't work and all i do is whine in cnets blogs because i want to make some friends"
Have fun jack (in a box)
And the price is sexy too. :)
What does deeper mean? If Jeff is referring to the length from the front to the back of the console then he is mistaken. The console looks deeper because the the width is shorter. I had a concern about the depth of the console because the cabinet that I put my current PS3 is not that deep, but on IGN.com they had a video where they compared both PS3 side by side and it certainly was not deeper.
You need to know your facts before you post your articles and mislead people, Jeff.
They cut the sides and made it thinner but it is longer then the original model
You are misjudging the photos. Watch the IGN video of them unboxing the PS3 slim. They place the consoles together and they are the same depth from the front to the back.
On ZDNet.com they also have photos of unboxing the PS3 slim. There is one shot looking at the top of both consoles and you can clearly see that the depth on both are the same.
http://content.zdnet.com/2346-9595_22-332794-8.html
Ha Ha, how do you like that monkeyfun14 and Jeff? There is your proof.
Thanks blusky08 for that info.
All of the equipment i have now are black with white and blue displays. Sony 7.1 receiver, Sony BD player, Dish HD receiver, Roku player, PS2 slim, Psyclone HDMI switcher, media extender. So what i would like to see is a standard looking unit with an information display. It could display a PS3 logo normally, but then tell me the game being played. audio or video media being played, friends coming on-line, whatever they want to put on there, just like on the front display of my HTPC system.
IT IS A CONSOLE! Not a portable!!!!
The only real issue as I have said is price, power consumption and performance. On those fronts Sony has made progress although lack of backwards compatibility is kinda a bummer. (360 does have some backwards compatibility btw).
Further, this only makes the PS3 even with the competitions most expensive model so its a move in the right direction. Still, in context, Sony is really only now getting their $h1t together while the other two have been eating Sony's lunch for last several years.
Again, when we are talking about the few cubic inches that we are, the dimensions matter not on a console!!!
My perspective is that it is disrespectful to the folks that supported Sony and Playstation to make their investment over the years useless. Its kind of like not leaving with the person who brought you to the dance.
Sony, make one where I can play the PS2 games and I will buy the PS3 machine and new games over time. Hope you are listening!
Do you still play your original xbox games? Do you still play NES, SNES, N64, Gamecube games? I doubt it, why waste your time with old tech.
Because those games were not as good as ps2 games. also there was not a massive amount of games. Over the years i have built a collection of over 50 ps2 games, i switched to xbox but still, when you invest that much, people want return on the investment,.
@kewell82: I do still play Xbox games, but more importantly I still play PS2 games and there are quite a few PS2 games I haven't even bought yet, let alone played. I agree with rich12313. We have made an investment over the years, and I'll be doing what you say: Keeping the PS2. It will remain sitting in the spot where the PS3 will go when they bring back BC.
I initially bought a ps3 because of its backwards compatibility (the 60GB model w/Emotion engine built in) Found myself using it maybe twice.. then that machine went **** up. I got a replacement, and havent put a Ps2 game in since. Backwards compatibility is a non issue... people want BC? Get a ps2 then and quit whining about it not being there in the ps3.
And for the record, No. Sony isn't listening to your pitiful little rant. And the people who have supported Sony over the years and bought their consoles (and took care of them) most likely still have them. Hence BC being ANOTHER non issue.
What did you expect? Sony had to cut costs somehow, so everyone should just be happy they got the $299 price point the so badly wanted.
I can say that I am a much happier PS3 owner now that I upgraded my CPU from Vista to Windows 7 RC. If you like to stream, use Vista, and plan to upgrade the install W7. W&RC It is stable, seamless to upgrade, and it will prevent a lot of headache's. So Kudo's to MS for giving PS3 owners the ability to stream content from Media Center (yes even HD video) to the PS3 without the third party software, hacks, and headaches.
- by SargentSamurai August 20, 2009 4:05 PM PDT
- I honestly don't give damn about what it looks like. The $299 price tag is the sexiest part to me.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 5 pages (195 Comments)