The next feature to be removed from the PS3

[zektor]

I *love* my PS3. I clock more hours on this machine than any other these days. That said, this is not a rant or a knock on my favorite current gen system.

I got to thinking today about the removal of PS2 compatibility, the card readers and extra USB ports. I also got to thinking about how very cool it is to actually be able to remove and upgrade the HD with essentially any laptop HD that complies with the specs. I recently ordered a 500GB drive for only $99 (shipped!) and can't wait for it to arrive. I have done this install before (the hardest part is not stripping screws really) and know what I am up against...no big deal.

But, after reading around on the net it seems people DO have issues conducting this upgrade. If not stripping screws, general HD problems and problems transferring (backup) of info from their old drive. Mainly due to the fact that these people really do not know what they are doing, but regardless. Sony's customer support is getting hit up with calls in regards to bad HD installs as far as I am reading.

I can bet anything that the ability to perform a HD upgrade will be eliminated in a future PS3 revision. Perhaps they will release a 320GB version that will have it's HD completely internal and not accessible by the average user. It would make sense to stop people from fiddling with the components and causing issues, as well as tighten up PS3 sales in regards to HD space (ie: why buy a 160GB PS3 for $500 while you can buy an 80 for $400 and a 500GB drive for $100....same price, MUCH more space)

What do you guys think? Just my own personal prediction.... let's hope it never happens :) I have noticed that earlier revisions of the PS3 had a sticker or some sort of indication that the HD is behind that cover on the side of the machine, but curiously the indication is gone on the latest models (just blank cover) although of course the cover is still there.

[FlufflePuff]

It would make sense. Games companies make their money on software and peripherals and Sony certainly isn't making any money right now. This brings up an interesting devil's advocate thought for me. Could Sony mandate that to play online you had to have a Sony hard drive? Surely this would piss people off, but I have to imagine that somewhere in the user agreement it says something about not upgrading the components.

[c0ldb33r]

Could Sony mandate that to play online you had to have a Sony hard drive?
I'm not a sony fan by any means, but I couldn't see them do that. They've allowed people to do the mod for a few years now, to remove online access a few years after the fact is just unimaginable.

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

I think they've gone and trimmed all the fat that they're willing to/that they can at the present time.

They did proprietary HDDs on the PS2 and that didn't work out for them at all. I can't see them making that shift at the present time...or any legitimate reason for them to.

They certainly can't take away the USB ports considering how many copies or Rock Band, Singstar and Guitar Hero are sold each year ... and I don't believe that the Wi-Fi receiver adds any type of significant cost to the unit at this point in the technology's life-cycle.

What I think that we'll see moving forward from Sony is a marked increase in micro-transaction offerings in areas like Home, and games like LBP, Killzone 2, etc.

Sony reported that in the first week it was available that clothing microtransactions netted them more money than months worth of TV/Movie downloads via the PSN.

Also expect Sony to keep up their standard operating practice of intense hardware revisions to lower the cost of the PS3 ... I'd be LESS surprised to see a "slim" type PS3 come down the pike in the next few years with revised hardware that does all the same stuff yet costs Sony a hell of a lot less to produce.

[Clownzilla]

What I think that we'll see moving forward from Sony is a marked increase in micro-transaction offerings in areas like Home, and games like LBP, Killzone 2, etc.


Unfortunately your right. Contrary to what many gamers think, micro-transactions are destroying electronic gaming. It's getting to the point to where the best player is who has the most money. It's like letting a baseball player use a corked bat if they pay the umpire $$$ at the plate:) Sure, if it stayed at clothing and other in-game items that don't affect game outcome then it would be fine. Unfortunately, you now pay for faster cars, bigger weapons, nicer armor, etc. Gone are the days where a humble gamer can drop $30 on an NES cartridge and play it for years. Now gaming is based on a long term payment plan:(

[backguard]

I wish they would remove home...

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

Unfortunately your right. Contrary to what many gamers think, micro-transactions are destroying electronic gaming. It's getting to the point to where the best player is who has the most money. It's like letting a baseball player use a corked bat if they pay the umpire $$$ at the plate:) Sure, if it stayed at clothing and other in-game items that don't affect game outcome then it would be fine. Unfortunately, you now pay for faster cars, bigger weapons, nicer armor, etc. Gone are the days where a humble gamer can drop $30 on an NES cartridge and play it for years. Now gaming is based on a long term payment plan:(

Well. Lets take the good with the bad.

Microtransactions along the lines of those that EA has offered up which allow users to skip in-game standard unlocks in games like Need For Speed really do suck.

BUT

There are some truly awesome DLC add-ons that can be considered to be "microtransactions" like the MGS content in Little Big Planet, or the forthcoming legendary car pack in Burnout Paradise.

[BHvrd]

I dunno, but I just wanted to take this chance to say that I also got a 500GB drive, it's so schweeet. ><

This is the one I got, slap it right in and it works, no muss no fuss:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822152114


Also bought this enclosure to use my old PS3 drive as a portable disk, works brilliant and has a cool little blue led light. :)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817392019

[maxlords]

Sony reported that in the first week it was available that clothing microtransactions netted them more money than months worth of TV/Movie downloads via the PSN.


Translation - People are stupid.

[BHvrd]

Sony reported that in the first week it was available that clothing microtransactions netted them more money than months worth of TV/Movie downloads via the PSN.




Maybe cause when you buy stuff in Home you get to keep it?

I'm sorry, but I have to point out that once you download a movie from PSN you're fucked if you lose the data!!

There is no re-dowloading of movies on PSN, main reason i'm sure this service is suffering, I mean come on, that's some serious bullshit and surprised I haven't heard more about it.

I'll never buy a movie on PSN ever again because of this, period.

[zektor]

Maybe cause when you buy stuff in Home you get to keep it?

I'm sorry, but I have to point out that once you download a movie from PSN you're fucked if you lose the data!!

There is no re-dowloading of movies on PSN, main reason i'm sure this service is suffering, I mean come on, that's some serious bullshit and surprised I haven't heard more about it.

I'll never buy a movie on PSN ever again because of this, period.

I agree that NEEDS to be fixed. I did not know this, since I have only rented movies and have not made any movie purchases. Nah, for my movie purchases I need physical (blu-ray) media.

[c0ldb33r]

I'm sorry, but I have to point out that once you download a movie from PSN you're fucked if you lose the data!!
That's absolutely retarded. :(

As for microtransactions, I have no problem with DLC if it's meant to breathe new life into an older game. I hate it when (1) you can purchase content that is meant to be unlocked in-game (this just means they're gonna make it really fucking hard to unlock in the game), and (2) they purposely leave content out of a game just so they can release it as DLC and make you pay more. :mad:

[ProgrammingAce]

...they purposely leave content out of a game just so they can release it as DLC and make you pay more. :mad:

A lot of times, the content that's added back in was going to be cut either way due to deadlines. I've *never* seen an instance where a level was feature completed, only to be removed to be added back in as DLC.

What i have seen is producers forced to cut out a level that's half complete and buggy because they need to meet their next milestone deadline. Instead of throwing all the work away, they finish it after the game is complete and sell it as DLC.

So either way, you weren't going to get the content in the final product, but it is nice to get extra content after a game ships.

[Emuaust]

A lot of times, the content that's added back in was going to be cut either way due to deadlines. I've *never* seen an instance where a level was feature completed, only to be removed to be added back in as DLC.

What i have seen is producers forced to cut out a level that's half complete and buggy because they need to meet their next milestone deadline. Instead of throwing all the work away, they finish it after the game is complete and sell it as DLC.

So either way, you weren't going to get the content in the final product, but it is nice to get extra content after a game ships.

Wasn't it a major news item regarding the latest Tomb Raider game?

[c0ldb33r]

A lot of times, the content that's added back in was going to be cut either way due to deadlines. I've *never* seen an instance where a level was feature completed, only to be removed to be added back in as DLC.
It's not just levels, but as described in the SF IV DLC thread (http://www.digitpress.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1507179), sometimes companies will leave content (in that case extra costumes) out of a game despite it being ready to go at launch simply to charge people more for it. To me, that's BS.

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

Maybe cause when you buy stuff in Home you get to keep it?

I'm sorry, but I have to point out that once you download a movie from PSN you're fucked if you lose the data!!

There is no re-dowloading of movies on PSN, main reason i'm sure this service is suffering, I mean come on, that's some serious bullshit and surprised I haven't heard more about it.

I'll never buy a movie on PSN ever again because of this, period.

While movies can't be re-downloaded on an unlimited basis, Sony can and will allow for a "recovery" download in the event that you have some type of un-recoverable data loss. You just need to call them and explain and they'll credit your account for a second download.

[jajaja]

But, after reading around on the net it seems people DO have issues conducting this upgrade. If not stripping screws, general HD problems and problems transferring (backup) of info from their old drive. Mainly due to the fact that these people really do not know what they are doing, but regardless. Sony's customer support is getting hit up with calls in regards to bad HD installs as far as I am reading.
I would guess it depends on what is more cost efficient, to keep having the Sony support there to help people who have problems after they have changed the PS3 harddrive or to redesign the PS3. I am not sure how much redesign that is required though, maybe it would be enough to just remove the lid where you can pull out the harddrive. I think it is an interesting question that you ask though, i havnt thought about this myself before you mentioned it :)



(ie: why buy a 160GB PS3 for $500 while you can buy an 80 for $400 and a 500GB drive for $100....same price, MUCH more space)
Ye, i agree, but i can mention that the 160GB PS3 model includes a copy of the PS3 games Uncharted: Drake's Fortune, which costs $55.99 US dollars at Amazon.com right now (maybe you can get the game cheaper somewhere else though :)).

But ye, i agree with what you are saying :) If you are planing on buying a 160GB PS3 model because you want more space than the 80GB PS3 model, then i would say that it might be a better choice to buy an 80GB PS3 model and then buy a 500GB for $100 instead and swap the 80GB harddrive that is inside the PS3 with the 500GB harddrive that you bought separately :)

[scooterb23]

Maybe they need to get rid of Blu Ray support...


What?? ;)

[ProgrammingAce]

Wasn't it a major news item regarding the latest Tomb Raider game?

Yes, that story was according to an artist that worked on the title. The producer came out and refuted it, saying what i said above. They had to cut content to meet a deadline. Since the producer was laid off from Eidos before he gave the comment, i don't think he had any reason to cover for the company. I'd tend to believe him over an unnamed artist.


It's not just levels, but as described in the SF IV DLC thread (http://www.digitpress.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1507179), sometimes companies will leave content (in that case extra costumes) out of a game despite it being ready to go at launch simply to charge people more for it. To me, that's BS.

Yeah, that's just lame. I won't support companies who do that, i won't buy Katamari for that reason. Microsoft isn't real fond of the practice either, i've heard rumor that they're going to clamp down on companies who do it. They have to be careful with the wording though, there are legitimate uses such as the DLC pack that came with the LE version of Gears of War 2, or when companies re-use assets already on the disc to make new levels.

With SF IV, aren't the costumes unlockable through gameplay? Or am i missing something?

CoD4's map packs were made up almost entirely of pre-existing assets. I'd say they were worth every penny of $10 though.

[jajaja]

Maybe they need to get rid of Blu Ray support...


What?? ;)
I wonder how much a PS3 would cost today if it wasnt for the Blu Ray player, does anyone know? :) I know they cant remove the Blu Ray player from the PS3 now, since then many PS3 games wont work because most (or perhaps all?) PS3 disc based games are on a Bluray disc, but i still wonder how much a PS3 would cost today if it wasnt for the Blu Ray player :)

[ProgrammingAce]

If you want to go back to the launch, we'll take a look at the initial price breakdown. Let's assume Sony could source a dvd drive at the same price as the 360.

http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/ne/p/2006/consoles_chart_232x215.gif

If we take the lowest estimated cost for the bluray drive, the PS3 would have cost $24 more then the $360, but would have come with built in wireless. At the highest prices for CPU and drive, it still would have been $200 more then the 360.

So yeah, they pretty much shot themselves in the foot with the bluray. The other problem is that the CELL was 50% more expensive with no real benefits. And that's not including the R&D costs.

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

http://kotaku.com/5147616/ps3-moving-to-smaller-cheaper-chip

Sony's traditional internal cost-saving hardware revisions begin.

This is where they'll begin to recoup cost and losses in the long-term.

It's how they did it with PS1, PS2 and PSP.

Par for the course.

[Sonicwolf]

The next feature to be removed from the PlayStation 3 - THE ABILITY TO PLAY GAMES, PERIOD. lol

[scooterb23]

The next feature to be removed from the PlayStation 3 - THE ABILITY TO PLAY GAMES, PERIOD. lol

Which would affect approximately 7 people.

[MrRoboto19XX]

The next feature to be removed from the PlayStation 3 - THE ABILITY TO PLAY GAMES, PERIOD. lol

You know, Apple did that about 15 years ago, and it's worked out pretty well for them since then. ;)

[Sothy]

I heard they are getting breakout 2!

[jajaja]

If you want to go back to the launch, we'll take a look at the initial price breakdown. Let's assume Sony could source a dvd drive at the same price as the 360.

http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/ne/p/2006/consoles_chart_232x215.gif

If we take the lowest estimated cost for the bluray drive, the PS3 would have cost $24 more then the $360, but would have come with built in wireless. At the highest prices for CPU and drive, it still would have been $200 more then the 360.

So yeah, they pretty much shot themselves in the foot with the bluray. The other problem is that the CELL was 50% more expensive with no real benefits. And that's not including the R&D costs.
I am sorry for the late reply here, i forgot to check this thread after i posted my post :\

Thanks for that price breakdown chart! :) I think it depnds on how you look at it, about if Sony shot themselves in the foot with the Bluray. I mean, if you look at the price on the PS3 (at least the launch price), and if you look at how the PS3 is selling compared to how the PS1 and the PS2 sold, then it look like including a Bluray drive in the PS3 wasnt exactly the best decition, i agree.

But what would have happend to the Bluray format itself if it wasnt included in the PS3? Would HD-DVD still be on the market now? Or was the PS3 a big reason for why Toshiba stopped producing HD-DVD players? Could it be a chance that HD-DVD became bigger and that Bluray was stopped being supported?

If the Bluray format itself sometime becomes the new standard for disc based movies like the DVD is today, then it might have been a good decition to include a Bluray drive in the PS3, at least in my opinion :)

If the Bluray becomes the new standard for disc based movies like the DVD is today, then Sony might make alot of money on this, and maybe more money that they would have made on the PS3 if they used a DVD-drive in the PS3 instead. But we would have to wait and see how popular the Bluray format itself becomes in the next years to come.

EDIT: Maybe the Bluray format could still become the new standard for disc based movies even if the PS3 did used a DVD-drive instead of a Bluray-drive though, unfortunately i have no idea.

:)

[Sonicwolf]

Which would affect approximately 7 people.

Ouch. 2 more people than the Gamecube userbase.

[Sudo]

Which would affect approximately 7 people.

At least those 7 people will still be able to play their PS3s long after every 360 on Earth has self-destructed.

[zektor]

At least those 7 people will still be able to play their PS3s long after every 360 on Earth has self-destructed.

Wait, there are still functional 360's in the wild? :)

To get back to the HD theory:

Yes, I think it would be really as simple as molding a casing without the HD panel. The launch system had (at least mine did) a pretty lengthy sticker on the panel. Then I saw versions that just had a sticker that said "HDD", now the latest model has no sticker at all. Probably nothing, but still...makes you think. I would not be at all surprised if one of these days (maybe when the new 45nm models are released), somebody buys one and discovers there is simply no HD panel to remove. This would not mean that the HD could not still be upgraded of course, but it WOULD mean that the user would have to break the seal and open the system to do so, effectively voiding the warranty. We'll see down the road I suppose...

[Solertia]

Fortunately, I have the 80GB PS3 (from MGS4 bundle), with flash card readers, 4x USB ports, and PS2 backwards-compatibility. I'm all set. :cool:

[jajaja]

Which would affect approximately 7 people.
I am sorry for the late reply here.

I dont think the PS3 software sale is that bad, if that is what you mean with that it would approximately affect 7 people if Sony removes the ability to play games on the Playstation 3? :) Please correct me if i am wrong, but isnt the PS3 software sales not that much different than the Xbox 360 software sale if you take the console installbase into account? At least in USA. Take the sales of Call of Duty: World at War in USA for example:

--------------------------------------------
Call of Duty: World at War for the Xbox 360 = 2.74 million copies sold
Call of Duty: World at War for the Playstation 3 = 1.13 million copies sold

(these software sales are couning for November and December in 2008, unfortunately i dont think that we dont have the January 2009 numbers yet).


Xbox 360 consoles userbase in the US: 13,857,400
Playstation 3 console userbase in the US: 6,790,000


Call of Duty: World at War for the Xbox 360 got an attach ratio on about 1/5
Call of Duty: World at War for the Playstation 3 got an attach ratio on about 1/6

I think my calculations are correct at least, unless i have missed some numbers or calculated wrong.


EDIT: The numbers that i used are from NPD (www.npd.com). I found the console install base numbers and the total amount of copies sold for Call of Duty: World at War here:

http://vgsales.wikia.com/wiki/NPD_Seventh_generation

The numbers on this website are the NPD numbers though, but this website has calculated the monthly console hardware sale NPD numbers together, so i didnt have to do that maually myself :)
--------------------------------------------


The Xbox 360 version of Call of Duty: World at War has sold over twice as many copies compared to the Playstation 3 version of Call of Duty: World at War, so the Xbox 360 version has definitly sold more copies compared to the Playstation 3 version. But if you look at the install base and at the attach ratio, then the Playstation 3 version isnt really that far behind the Xbox 360 version, at least in my opinion :)

But even if the PS3 attach ratio for Call of Duty: World at War isnt really that far behind the attach ratio for the Xbox 360 ration , maybe the publisher/developers mostly care about about how many copies of their game(s) has sold in total though :)

And this example with Call of Duty: World at War is just one game, unfortunately i have no idea if all the other games got a bigger attach ration on the Xbox 360 compared to the attach ratio on the Playstation 3, but i am under the impression that the Playstation 3 software isnt really that bad if you take the console install base into account, but please correct me if i am wrong :)

EDIT: I made a big mistake about saying that the PS3 version of Call of Duty: World at War had a bigger attach ratio compared to the Xbox 360 version, but it was the other way around. The Xbox 360 version of Call of Duty: World at War has a bigger attach ration compared to the PS3 version. I am sorry about this mistake! :\ Thanks for pointing this out ProgrammingAce! :)

[ProgrammingAce]

Call of Duty: World at War for the Xbox 360 got an attach ration on about 1/5
Call of Duty: World at War for the Playstation 3 got an attach ration on about 1/6

But if you look at the install base and at the attach ratio, then the Playstation 3 version actually has a higher attach ratio.


Not to be an Acehole, but check that again...

I don't have the current numbers, but traditionally the Xbox has a much higher overall attach rate then any other current system.

[c0ldb33r]

hey guys, I think he was just making a joke about the 7 people

[jajaja]

Not to be an Acehole, but check that again...

I don't have the current numbers, but traditionally the Xbox has a much higher overall attach rate then any other current system.
Ah, you are right, i made a big mistake. In this case, an attach ratio of 1 of 5 is of course bigger than 1 of 6. Since on Xbox 360 1 out of 5 people own Call of Duty: World at War, but on the PS3 it is 1 out of 6 (which is less than 1 out of 5). I dont know how i mixed that up earlier. I will edit my previous post now. Thanks for pointing this out! :) I am sorry for the mistake! :\

Ye, about games in general the Xbox 360 have a bigger attach ratio compared to the Playstation 3, and maybe compared to the Wii as well. I just wanted to show that the difference in software sales between the PS3 and the Xbox 360 when you take the usebase into consideration isnt always that huge. Even if my mistake earlier regarding Call of Duty: World at War, i dont think an attach ratio on 1/5 and 1/6 is too big of a difference. It is definitly a difference, but it is not like the Xbox 360 version of Call of Duty: World at War has a twice as big attach ration compared to the Playstation 3 version or. But this is just my opinion :)

EDIT: For some reason i wrote "ration" instead of "ratio" in my previous post, sorry about that. I have fixed that now in my previous post as well :)



hey guys, I think he was just making a joke about the 7 people
Ye, i thought maybe that he was just making a joke about the 7 people, but i had to ask him if he ment that the software sale for the Playstation 3 was low :) There is (or was) a stigma (or what i shall say) that people dont buy games for the Playstation 3. I just wanted discuss alittle around this to see if this is true, if people dont buy games for the PS3.

I just took an example with Call of Duty: World at War to see how the software sales on the PS3 was, at least compared to the software sales on the Xbox 360, and when we take into account that the PS3 has the smallest console installbase in USA beteween the Wii, the PS3 and the Xbox 360.

But this example was just about 1 game though, so i am not sure how the software sales in general are on the PS3. And as ProgrammingAce said, the Xbox 360 got a higher attach ratio than the PS3 when it comes to software sales, but i still think the PS3 software sale isnt really at least that bad if you take the PS3 console install base into concideration, but that is just my opinion :)

I dont mean to get too much off-topic here either, i am sorry about that :\ But i just wanted to ask about how the PS3 software/game sales are :)