Sony confirms cheaper 40GB PS3 for Europe; U.S. version to follow?

The new 40GB PS3: Are the compromises worth the reduced price tag?

(Credit: Sony Computer Entertainment Europe)

The rumors were true, almost to the letter. Sony Europe has confirmed the existence of a new entry-level PlayStation 3. Scheduled to hit stores on the Continent on October 10, the new PS3 has been stripped down to hit a lower price point: it's got a smaller 40GB hard drive, no built-in flash media reader, and two (rather than four) USB ports. But the biggest change appears to be the loss of backward compatibility with PS2 games. Sony's release specifies that "[t]he new model is no longer backwards compatible with PlayStation 2 titles, reflecting both the reduced emphasis placed on this feature amongst later purchasers of PS3, as well as the availability of a more extensive lineup of PS3 specific titles (a total of 65 titles across all genres by Christmas)." That seems to counter conventional wisdom, since the newer PS3s were already said to be using software emulation (rather than an actual PS2 Emotion Engine chip) to play older games. In brighter news, the new PS3s retain Blu-ray playback, HDMI output, and onboard Wi-Fi.

The 40GB PS3 will retail for £300 in the U.K. and €400 across continental Europe. The existing 60GB PS3--which retains backwards compatibility--remains on the market with a price cut and a new bundle as well. There's no official word for those of us outside Europe, but it's a safe bet that PS3 sales in North America will crawl to a standstill as consumers wait for the other price-cut shoe to drop on this side of the Pond. The expected price tag will be $400--a huge bargain, considering the current weakness of the American dollar.

Of course, the PS3 had already seen a de facto price cut to $500 just a few months ago, but the PS3 has yet to generate a Halo-like hit for hardcore gamers or connect with mainstream audiences like the red-hot (and much cheaper) Nintendo Wii. Despite a couple of recent hits (Warhawk, Heavenly Sword), With keystone exclusives such as Metal Gear Solid 4 and now Unreal Tournament III pushed back to 2008, Uncharted: Drake's Fortune seems to be the only hotly anticipated PS3 exclusive slated to hit this fall. In short, Sony needs to generate some excitement in the meantime, and the prospect of a $400 PS3 just in time for the holidays sounds like a perfect recipe. Whether or not the backward compatibility issue will sour the deal remains to be seen.

What do you think: is the (presumably imminent) PS3 worth $400, or is the dearth of backward compatibility a deal breaker?

[navsimpson]

One more time...

I get why 14 year old forum posters are saying "if it's software emulation, why did they take it out" - after all, they don't know any better - but why are professionals saying the same thing? The PS3's emulation of PS2 games requires the PS2's graphics chip, as there is no way to replicate the extremely fast EDRAM on the PS3's RSX GPU. While you can take out the PS2's CPU, the same can't be said for the graphics chip - that's why these new models are not backwards compatible. It was obviously a cost-cutting measure and will probably end up being the right choice.

[navsimpson]

One more time...

I get why 14 year old forum posters are saying "if it's software emulation, why did they take it out" - after all, they don't know any better - but why are professionals saying the same thing? The PS3's emulation of PS2 games requires the PS2's graphics chip, as there is no way to replicate the extremely fast EDRAM on the PS3's RSX GPU. While you can take out the PS2's CPU, the same can't be said for the graphics chip - that's why these new models are not backwards compatible. It was obviously a cost-cutting measure and will probably end up being the right choice.

[Perry L]

Exclusives

First:
Ratchet and Clank is out in a few weeks. That game is bigger than uncharted.

Second:
Who cares if a game is exclusive? I sold my 360. If a game is on PS3 and 360, I'll obviously be getting the PS3 version.

Sure, I would love to play Bioshock and Mass Effect but not enough to buy another 360. Maybe when the 360 is $100 and the exclsuive games are $20 each in a few years, but not now.

[Perry L]

Exclusives

First:
Ratchet and Clank is out in a few weeks. That game is bigger than uncharted.

Second:
Who cares if a game is exclusive? I sold my 360. If a game is on PS3 and 360, I'll obviously be getting the PS3 version.

Sure, I would love to play Bioshock and Mass Effect but not enough to buy another 360. Maybe when the 360 is $100 and the exclsuive games are $20 each in a few years, but not now.

[j_powell]

Lack of Backwards Compatability Unwise

There is an enormous base of PS2 users out there. Furthermore you can still
buy a PS2 and PS2 software, so that installed base continues to expand.

Providing a clean upgrade path to existing users makes a lot of sense - they
can upgrade to the new generation hardware without losing the investment in
their current games. However, if the PS3 no longer plays PS2 games, then
that incentive goes out the window and PS2 users might just upgrade to an
XBox 360.

I own a PS2 and one of the main reasons I wanted to go the PS3 route when I
upgrade is that it would play my extensive library of existing games. I don't
want two consoles in my family room, just one. But if that incentive for the
PS3 disappears, I might go XBox.

[j_powell]

Lack of Backwards Compatability Unwise

There is an enormous base of PS2 users out there. Furthermore you can still
buy a PS2 and PS2 software, so that installed base continues to expand.

Providing a clean upgrade path to existing users makes a lot of sense - they
can upgrade to the new generation hardware without losing the investment in
their current games. However, if the PS3 no longer plays PS2 games, then
that incentive goes out the window and PS2 users might just upgrade to an
XBox 360.

I own a PS2 and one of the main reasons I wanted to go the PS3 route when I
upgrade is that it would play my extensive library of existing games. I don't
want two consoles in my family room, just one. But if that incentive for the
PS3 disappears, I might go XBox.

[brandonh33]

Good move sony

First of all, I have never used my memory card reader on my ps3, it was more of a gimmick. And the people who want to use the ps3 for ps2 games too also have a ps2, so why not just use both consoles? $400 is an incredible deal, I honestly cant believe it. The system is now in the 360's price zone, I just wish more people would realize how incredible the ps3's are all priced compared to the 360. Seriously dont just look at the base price!

[brandonh33]

Good move sony

First of all, I have never used my memory card reader on my ps3, it was more of a gimmick. And the people who want to use the ps3 for ps2 games too also have a ps2, so why not just use both consoles? $400 is an incredible deal, I honestly cant believe it. The system is now in the 360's price zone, I just wish more people would realize how incredible the ps3's are all priced compared to the 360. Seriously dont just look at the base price!

[c.Lake]

So Stupid, where do I begin?

With no really good games out for the PS3, backwards compatibility is all I
care about. Great, you made it cheaper, but what good is it to me now that I
need to have 2 systems. Nice job on rewarding customer loyalty, oh wait...

If Sony hadn't put the freakin' Blu-ray into begin with, there wouldn't be this
struggle on "where to reduce the cost", Duh. And before anyone starts in on
that crap about "but it's the cheapest Blu-Ray player, bluh, bluh, bluh". There
has to be movies that are released on Blu-Ray in order to play them on a Blu-
Ray player.

I mean, movies that don't suck. ex: Ultraviolent, get real --- where the hell
is LORD OF THE RINGS?!?! Or HARRY POTTER?!?!? Or HD Music Concerts!?!?
You know the kind of stuff a person would WANT to see on HD, and would be
willing to shell out $35 bucks for, (Not "Click", or any other retarded comedy I
can see for $7.50 on DVD)

Come on, does this really have to be mentioned? Monkeys run Sony.

[c.Lake]

So Stupid, where do I begin?

With no really good games out for the PS3, backwards compatibility is all I
care about. Great, you made it cheaper, but what good is it to me now that I
need to have 2 systems. Nice job on rewarding customer loyalty, oh wait...

If Sony hadn't put the freakin' Blu-ray into begin with, there wouldn't be this
struggle on "where to reduce the cost", Duh. And before anyone starts in on
that crap about "but it's the cheapest Blu-Ray player, bluh, bluh, bluh". There
has to be movies that are released on Blu-Ray in order to play them on a Blu-
Ray player.

I mean, movies that don't suck. ex: Ultraviolent, get real --- where the hell
is LORD OF THE RINGS?!?! Or HARRY POTTER?!?!? Or HD Music Concerts!?!?
You know the kind of stuff a person would WANT to see on HD, and would be
willing to shell out $35 bucks for, (Not "Click", or any other retarded comedy I
can see for $7.50 on DVD)

Come on, does this really have to be mentioned? Monkeys run Sony.

[jwkware]

sony sony sony, how dumb can you be, you and apple

ok first of all, its kinda tradition to have backwards compatibility on playstation, and that doesnt cost them that much, now my problem is the dreaded blue ray, with the playstation sony jumps on the ban wagon and puts the media that is popular in on ps1 it was cd, they could have used cartridge but they wanted an extra spark, wow you can also play cds on our console dont buy the n64, ok then we go to ps2 and dvd format has just become popular sony says "oh lets put a dvd player in it and call it more than a game system" now the ps3 comes out and they jump for blueray, theres where they could have saved money. there is a little but now a lot of difference in ps3 and sbox360, now you cant tell me they couldnt have put a dl dvd drive in it and put the games on dl dvds, sony just figures us customer are stupid and no matter whats in it we will buy it. i gotta say there right i got one. still sony hit yourselves on the head and try to learn better values, if we want a blueray we will go buy one, theres where you could have saved money, DUH !!!,..... jwkware "joe"

[jwkware]

sony sony sony, how dumb can you be, you and apple

ok first of all, its kinda tradition to have backwards compatibility on playstation, and that doesnt cost them that much, now my problem is the dreaded blue ray, with the playstation sony jumps on the ban wagon and puts the media that is popular in on ps1 it was cd, they could have used cartridge but they wanted an extra spark, wow you can also play cds on our console dont buy the n64, ok then we go to ps2 and dvd format has just become popular sony says "oh lets put a dvd player in it and call it more than a game system" now the ps3 comes out and they jump for blueray, theres where they could have saved money. there is a little but now a lot of difference in ps3 and sbox360, now you cant tell me they couldnt have put a dl dvd drive in it and put the games on dl dvds, sony just figures us customer are stupid and no matter whats in it we will buy it. i gotta say there right i got one. still sony hit yourselves on the head and try to learn better values, if we want a blueray we will go buy one, theres where you could have saved money, DUH !!!,..... jwkware "joe"

[Obfusc8r]

For whom does this make sense?!

Backward compatibility is paramount! I have considered purchasing a PS3 to put side-by-side with my 360 and playing some of the 'Sony only' games that were offered in PS2 and PS3. Without backward compatibility, I will not make the purchase. If I really wanted Blu-Ray or HD (as in the case of the 360), I would buy it. Don't try to include something most consumers could care less about in a gaming console.

[Obfusc8r]

For whom does this make sense?!

Backward compatibility is paramount! I have considered purchasing a PS3 to put side-by-side with my 360 and playing some of the 'Sony only' games that were offered in PS2 and PS3. Without backward compatibility, I will not make the purchase. If I really wanted Blu-Ray or HD (as in the case of the 360), I would buy it. Don't try to include something most consumers could care less about in a gaming console.

[D3vr04]

...sigh)))

ps2 is what made owners interested in ps3, not the ps3 games. at least not the launch and near future titles. Backward compat. is a must for the third iteration of psx.
Of course I am waiting on MSG4 and FFXIII, befor I buy a ps3, but man looks like i'll be waiting longer because I want the version that can play the God of Wars, FFXII, and RE4. I have a save more cash. its not easy to just plunk down $500+.
gosh, I supposed that's how they'll make more money, buy 'forcing' hardcore gamers to purchase the expensive model.

[mattumanu]

It's about the games...

I recently replayed the original metal gear solid... That was really cool. The thing that's been nice about Sony so far is that you can play every iteration of a game on one console. That includes MGS, MGS2, Snake eater... and I would hope MGS4. But that's ok, because I'm not concerned about that. I'm waiting till MGS4 comes out before I get a PS3. If I were the heads at Sony, I would have waited till the upcoming Christmas to release the thing, AND have MGS4, Ridge Racer, Gran Turismo, A High def version of Tomb Raider anniversery, Warhawk and a new Wipeout game... What Sony thought was a good opening round of games turned out to be a bit rat turd collection.

Sony wont get the gamers they want to buy their system till they get the games. How about twisted metal? An online version of that would absolutely rock! Online VR missions, co-op and vs. Snake versus Raiden! Worldwide wipeout tournaments... What it could have been!

Oh well... Sony might get a clue soon.