Apparently bestbuy got rid of all the 20GB PS3 stock they had and dont plan to replace it, since the status in the model reads "discontinued". So bestbuy doesnt wants any 20GB units, and according to Sony's David Karraker most retailers prefer the 60GB unit over the 20GB one in a 4:1 ratio. No wonder why since the retail profit margin in the 20GB unit is pretty low, and the exact opposite in Sony's books since that model represents the biggest lost per unit in the PS3 line (or even the entire PSX series) Sony says they are still making the 20GB version, but on the other hand NextGen has evidence that production may be much lower than the 60GB version since that last one is seen in most stores while the 20GB is near impossible to find. And lets not forget the fact that the 20GB version wont be in the european launch... Source Joystiq
That's really retarded. The 20GB version is more than enough for most people. They just want to rake in more cash, big surprise.
No doubt, and if you ask me they should come up with an even more "light" version of the PS3 (no BC components, no included HDD) to make it cheaper. On the other hand, they may want to get rid of this model to stop bleeding money...
IF that is true it would be due to the fact that they produce much more 60GB's bringing the average cost from that one down so much it outweighs the cost to make a 20 gb.
there was a post a long time ago calculating the costs and indeed the cheaper model was losing more money despite missing parts. It's not a matter of volume of production, because the high cost of the Cell and RSX+ the rest of the components is still high. At 600 USD the difference is X , at 500 it is X+100, simple maths
Given that the 20GB model costs sony more per unit to manufacture than the 60GB model even though the 20GB model has LESS stuff in it, why hasnt sony just discoutinued the 20GB model? If I was selling 2 models and the one with less stuff in it actually cost MORE to make, I would discontinue that model...
Losing more money is not equal to costing more to make! all it means is that the features missing in the 20gb do not account for $100 of difference, and so the % cost greater than retail is larger than on the 60gb.
You are correct, good point, but I said "costs them more", which means that they have more loss. I did not say costs them more to make. Big difference there eh? well put the words in any order you wish my friend, bottom line is that the 60GB model is less lossy, which makes the 20GB model's discontinuation a very real possibility. Of course unlike some gifted folks, I have no foresight abilities to see into the future or have visions, i m limited by logic
Personaly I am a fan of the 20GB model. A larger harddrive would be the only benifit for me to go 60GB model. Personaly I think the silver line on the 60GB model is ugly and really I don't need wifi or memory stick ports (I still prefer wired networking over wireless & also I got a psp which when in usb mode is about the same as plugging in a memory stick). Tho over all I am not suprised if sony tries to reduce production of the cheaper model. Even the 360 proved people rather have the more expensive model (on average) over the cheaper one missing features. Umm. PS3 needs the HDD much like xbox 1 does. Everything gets saved to it and even some games auto install files on the HDD. I do agree stripping BC entirely would help but over all it wont make enough of a dent. There is very little else they could strip (specialy blu-ray cant be removed since all games are on BR disc).
The PS3 uses a normal HDD just like the old PS2, and to be honest I'll rather save a couple of bucks and buy a 80GB or 120GB HDD for my PS3, rather than pay for an "obsolete" disk, for today standarts of course... That would also be an extra point against the X360 since you can only use the proprietary unit on that one.
If they start offering a non-HDD PS3 then developers can't rely on the fact it is there when they make a game. That means they won't make use of it in the majority of cases, from previous evidence. The HDD is a valuable asset in the PS3's specification - just look at the flak Microsoft received from devs for releasing the core version of the XB360. Add to that the problem that the average Joe isn't going to want to buy a PS3 then buy and fit a 2.5" HDD into his system. Including it all in one unit is the only way to go.
Every game since the PSX needed a memory card, and while the Saturn had internal memory no PS has ever had that, yet every games uses the memory card. The PS3 HDD is the new memory card, and if joe could buy one of those he can buy an HDD and put it inside the system. But if he cant then he can buy the version with the included HDD... PS: the problem with the X360 is that it uses a proprietary which is both small and expensive, but if you could put any HDD on it, you could buy a HDD thats 4 or 5 times the storage of the default one for the same money.
The memory card wasn't instrumental in the function of a game though, it was merely used for saving. It would be a pain in the ass to play an RPG without a memory card, but the game would still run. The HDD is used in the PS3 for streaming data, which is much more critical. Also it is harder to install a HDD than a memory card and HDD are much more delicate. I wouldn't have a problem but I know plenty of people who would.
You got a good point there, but on the other hand a lot of companies requires you to buy something else to make it work. And just like MS made you buy the Xbox DVD accesory, sony could do the same with the PS3's HDD. Obviously is a risky strategy that may backfire, so it should be used in case no better solutions are available...
The key word is caching. The PS3 uses the hard drive to cache files. This is an irreplacable feature, unlike a game that can technically function without a memory card, but can't save. IT's technical necessity versus ease of mind. The HDD on the 360 is not used in caching, unlike the XBOX 1. It is for the exact same reason that u need the HDD to play b/c games on XBOX 360.
^^ True, and well they shouldn't. I just want the 60GB model in the "non-blingy" 20GB case. The 20GB case is infinitely better looking than the silver-lined 60Gb monstrosity. I like the 60GB's WiFi functionality though, which is almost worth $100 to me by itself.
