But can it play PS2 games!!/

No such luck, unfortunately.

Looks nice, and will help, but dammit, I want PS2 compatibility.

About bloody time with the price drop   Might buy one when it comes on sale..

Old one did look kinda chunky, and would have taken up a lot of space amongst everything else, so a smaller sized unit is definitely a plus for me.

It's definitely a good excuse to pick one up. Yes, the old one is massive.

I really don't get why they're not making it backwards compatible. Sooo stupid.

might be the time to save up and get a ps3 soonish, that is if they stick to the price drop probably get an older fat model because i dont really care about the size and hopefully they will be cheaper alongside these models

I really don't get why they're not making it backwards compatible. Sooo stupid.

I guess they think the cost of putting it in would be more than they would make from extra sales.

If by putting it in you mean 'writing the firmware for it'.

If by putting it in you mean 'writing the firmware for it'.

If that is true then it still applies. But the old PS3's that were backwards compatible had a Graphics Synthesizer GPU or something. The tech already exists but they do not believe it is worth the cost to continue to put them in.

It's simple really. As long as Sony are producing and selling the PS2, there will be no BC for the PS3. After all, why buy a PS2 if you can just play the games on a PS3? The sales would die pretty much overnight. Sony are just doing good business.

The reason why the 360 and Wii are backwards compatible is because the Gamecube and Xbox were dead by the time they were released.

It's simple really. As long as Sony are producing and selling the PS2, there will be no BC for the PS3. After all, why buy a PS2 if you can just play the games on a PS3? The sales would die pretty much overnight. Sony are just doing good business.

The reason why the 360 and Wii are backwards compatible is because the Gamecube and Xbox were dead by the time they were released.

Makes sense and now with the PS3 slim you can stack you PS3 and PS2 and it will use about the same amount of space.

No, I think that's wrong. It began with backwards compatibility from day one, and then they took it out. Surely no one would argue that the PS2 is more dead now than it was a couple of years ago? We know from the PS3 launch that sales of the PS2 did not die overnight. In fact, I'd argue that not having it is actually preventing PS2 owners from upgrading because they know all their existing library is worthless.

Making it backwards compatible may actually encourage some to play or even buy some older PS2  games. If they have a PS3, and if to dig out of the dust their PS2, and hook it all up and things to play a game now and then, most can't be bothered.

No, I think that's wrong. It began with backwards compatibility from day one, and then they took it out. Surely no one would argue that the PS2 is more dead now than it was a couple of years ago? We know from the PS3 launch that sales of the PS2 did not die overnight. In fact, I'd argue that not having it is actually preventing PS2 owners from upgrading because they know all their existing library is worthless.

The difference is that the PS3 was 1000 dollars back then. People didn't stop buying ps2's because it cost way too much. Plus it is hardly worthless unless they ditch their ps2.

Remember, you heard it first here.

http://www.slicedgaming.com/news/news11198.html

This is demonstrably false. Sony was producing and selling the PS2 when the PS3 launched. The real question is why they took it out. And, more importantly, why would they be concerned about losing PS2 sales? Sony wants people to adopt the PS3! If people aren't paying $100 for a PS2 but are instead paying $500 for a PS3, why would they care? It's like saying 'as long as they're producing DVD players, Sony won't let their Blu-Ray players play DVDs'. When upgrading, consumers want their gadgets to perform at least the functions of their previous system plus the new stuff. If people want a PS2, they're still making them - but it's shafting PS3 consumers from a feature that they originally had! It's nonsensical. There is no downside to adding the feature.

After all, why buy a PS2 if you can just play the games on a PS3? The sales would die pretty much overnight. Sony are just doing good business.

[quote author=moodycj link=topic=16952.msg181332#msg181332 date=1250664030]
The difference is that the PS3 was 1000 dollars back then. People didn't stop buying ps2's because it cost way too much. Plus it is hardly worthless unless they ditch their ps2.

It doesn't matter what the PS3 costs. What is the downside to including the feature? Why does Sony want to prolong its inferior system?

As long as Sony are producing and selling the PS2, there will be no BC for the PS3.[/quote]

This is demonstrably false. Sony was producing and selling the PS2 when the PS3 launched. The real question is why they took it out.[/quote]

I know exactly why they took it out, because they realised that they would be sending the PS2 console to an early grave. The fact that BC was ever included in the PS3 was a big mistake on their part, they realised this and got rid of it right away.

[quote="nshady"]And, more importantly, why would they be concerned about losing PS2 sales? Sony wants people to adopt the PS3! If people aren't paying $100 for a PS2 but are instead paying $500 for a PS3, why would they care?[/quote]

Because Sony could have made $600 from selling the consumer both consoles. Why would Sony throw away $100?

[quote="nshady"]It's like saying 'as long as they're producing DVD players, Sony won't let their Blu-Ray players play DVDs'. When upgrading, consumers want their gadgets to perform at least the functions of their previous system plus the new stuff. [/quote]

That's a bad comparison. Sony are not the only ones making DVD players, so they don't give a stuff if they miss out on a few sales by having Blu-Ray players playing DVDs. In fact, from their point of view it's probably a good thing as this easy BC with DVDs will encourage people to upgrade to their new Blu-Ray players which make them more money.  

[quote="nshady"]If people want a PS2, they're still making them.

But nobody would want one, since they could simply use their PS3 for the job.

[quote="nshady"]Why does Sony want to prolong its inferior system?

Because Sony like money.

I personally like the look of the old one more, it has a ...... commanding presence about it. You physically picked one up, you *knew* it was expensive. The new one just looks like someone ran over the old one on a scooter. Road kill - that's what it is!

friend of mine said sony have stopped shipping old ps3 units as of like 2-3 weeks ago to dry up stock and get demand, is this happening at your store dave? i was hoping i could get a phat model a little cheaper after the release

I think the fundamental problem with your analysis, Adam, is that you're assuming people with neither console are willing to buy both. I did not have a PS2. I have a PS3. I am not going to buy a PS2 - the previous console - to play some games I missed out on, knowing that the PS3 has the capability to play them. And I still strongly disagree that having backwards compatibility in the PS3 would have been a nail in the PS2's coffin. As has previously been said by moody, you're paying 5-10 times the price of the PS2 for a PS3. It's not an insignificant decision to choose the PS3 over the other. There was (to some extent still is) not a great selection of games. Not everyone has the TV to make full use of its hardware. If you're shopping for a PS2 in this day and age for the first time you've waited TEN YEARS to get one. Clearly they are not the type of early adopter to pick up a PS3 or to pay such a price.

But that's exactly it! "In fact, from their point of view it's probably a good thing as this easy BC with [s]DVDs[/s] PS2 games[/b] will encourage people to upgrade to their new [s]Blu-Ray players[/s] [b]PS3s which make them more money." If PS2 owners are looking for a current generation console, they're just as likely to upgrade to an Xbox if the new Sony console doesn't play any of their stuff. There's no incentive to stick with Sony - they'll have to keep their PS2 around anyway to play the discs they've bought over the years.

But nobody would want one, since they could simply use their PS3 for the job.

Again, not true. It is not an insignificant increase in price to purchase a PS3. It also requires an expensive television to make it worthwhile. PS2 is extremely affordable and will look as good as it's going to look on practically any TV. People buying PS2s today are likely to be those for whom price is a big deal.

[quote author=admeister link=topic=16952.msg181335#msg181335 date=1250673987]Because Sony like money.

The fact is that the PS2 and PS3 are in different markets. Different price brackets. Someone who has neither will not go out and buy both. It's just not going to happen.

You don't know that it's not going to happen. I was just talking hypothetically you know, of course not every PS3 owner is going to go out and buy a PS2. Some will though, and Sony will always make a bit of money from those who either upgrade from their Phat PS2 or need to buy a replacement console if something goes wrong. I can see what you're getting at though, BC would be a decent incentive for PS2 owners to make the jump to the PS3. That said, as long as there is some chance for Sony to make money out of the PS2, they will not be adding BC to the PS3. They need some reason for people to continue buying PS2 consoles. Money is better than incentive in this case. If people want to play PS2 games so badly, they'll just have to get themselves a PS2 console, if they don't already have one. Sure, Sony want people to buy PS3 consoles, but adding BC is only one method of getting people's attention. I think the new Slim console and price point will do more than BC could. One way or another, Sony are not stopping anyone from playing PS2 games if they want to.

For the record, I do think that BC will eventually come to the PS3, but for now Sony just want to milk the PS2 for all it's worth. For all we know, Sony might be making more money out of each PS2 they sell than they do with each PS3 they sell. At least they haven't had to sell the PS2 at a loss.

Okay, let's clarify a few things here. People upgrading from Phat to Slim PS2 and people buying replacements is (mostly) irrelevant. Those people are clearly those that cannot afford a PS3, so it doesn't matter whether it's backwards compatible or not. If someone was upgrading to a Slim (impliedly for just aesthetic reasons) and could afford a PS3, then surely they'd buy a PS3 and be able to play everything regardless of the PS3's capabilities? If their PS2 was faulty and the PS3 was backwards compatible, they'd obviously buy a PS3. And finally, if their PS2 was broken and the PS3 was not backwards compatible and they could afford it, they could buy both.

But here's the thing. The number of PS2 purchases from those who still want to play the system if the PS3 doesn't have backwards compatibility would have to outnumber the 'upgrade' purchases of PS3s by people who would buy the system if it did have backwards compatibility by a factor of four or five to one to make it financially logical. Or to put it more simply, for every one person who would upgrade from PS2 to a backwards compatible PS3, four to five people would need to purchase a PS2 alongside their incompatible PS3 to make the removal of backwards compatibility a financially justifiable decision, based on current console prices.

I disagree, don't assume that they cannot afford a PS3. Perhaps these people already have a PS3 but still want to use their PS2. In that scenario, Sony win.

[quote author=nshady link=topic=16952.msg181342#msg181342 date=1250691126]Or to put it more simply, for every one person who would upgrade from PS2 to a backwards compatible PS3, four to five people would need to purchase a PS2 alongside their incompatible PS3 to make the removal of backwards compatibility a financially justifiable decision, based on current console prices.

That's presuming that Sony make considerably more money out of selling a PS3 than they do out of selling a PS2. We don't actually know that. Console prices do not reflect how much Sony make from each console. I'm sure Sony aren't simply omitting BC because they feel like it, I'm sure they have a very good, financially justifiable reason.

Didn't you originally propose these options for PS2 owners only? Wasn't the point that they didn't own PS3s? At least, that's how I read it.

not every PS3 owner is going to go out and buy a PS2. Some will though, and Sony will always make a bit of money from those who either upgrade from their Phat PS2 or need to buy a replacement console if something goes wrong.

So you're talking about a) people with a PS3 who have a working Phat and are upgrading to a Slim for aesthetic reasons; and b) people with a PS3 with a broken Phat who bought a new PS2?

a) Why? Clearly a minority.
b) Just a variation on the third option I presented, but instead of buying both they already had the PS3.

In the first situation, the inclusion of backwards compatibility doesn't have any effect on the decision, but yes, in the second, if the PS3 was not backwards compatible then having backwards compatibility could potentially earn Sony some money. And you're right, it was fallacious of me to use console price instead of profit margins. However, the future potential expenditure on the PS3 console surely greatly outweighs future potential expenditure on the PS2. So much of the PS2's catalogue is discounted, discontinued or second hand. They might make a profit on the machine, but how much trickles down from later purchases? How much more life will they get from the console? Not only does the PS3 have a higher price, but you have the in-built online store for direct purchases, the in-built Blu-Ray player which opens up a new retail market to them (don't forget that Sony is part of the Blu-Ray Disc Assocation and wants that to succeed too) and another eight years of game releases.

Well said, and I think that's where Sony have to play their cards carefully. They know better than anyone that the PS3 has the potential to make them plenty of money, but they don't want to interfere with the PS2 in doing so, at least not at first. They'll need/want to implement BC into the PS3 at just the right time, when the PS2 is no longer worth supporting. They know that BC would be a good motivator to get a large number of people to make the jump to the PS3. I think their decision not to implement BC is a part of their 10 year plan, the BC they can offer is far superior to that of Nintendo and Microsoft's. Why not start the PS3 off without BC and see how the console fares, while still raking in money from PS2 sales? If the PS3 is failing by a large margin, then go all in and implement BC which will guarantee a boost in sales.

This is not the case however, even without BC, the PS3 is hot on the heels of the Xbox 360 in terms of console sales. Sony plan to have the console on the market for 10 years, they can afford not to put all their eggs in one basket from the beginning. They want a trump card, and PS2 BC is it. Their other trump card, which was sure not to cost them money and they decided to play from the beginning, was the ability to play Blu-Ray movies. Having the PS3 appear as not just a games console, but as a cheap Blu-Ray player was sure to boost their sales, and I know it certainly encouraged me to buy one.

It's easy to say they never had backwards compatibility, but it was over a year before they took it out. Over a year! How much more does the PS3 need to be failing by before they put it back in? In fact, as the price has dropped over time, I'd argue that NOT having the backwards compatibility is stopping PS2 owners who are basically done with their systems to upgrade. These people are probably just replaying their old games and waiting for the PS3 price to come down. Look at Gordy. Still hasn't upgraded, but how many PS2 games do you think he's buying or playing? How many 360 games has he bought/played in this time?

THEY DID put all their eggs in one basket at the beginning! For a year! It can't be a trump card if you take a feature out and then return when everyone asks for it! It's like the 360 taking out Xbox compatibility and then returning it a year later in a different model. It's not right either that the Blu-Ray didn't cost them money. It cost a lot of money. Why do you think the price was $1000!? If they'd stuck with a cheaper DVD drive and started at a lower price, how many people do you think would have a PS3 by now? A lot more. Yes, it's another feather in the PS3's cap, and certainly may have helped appeal to the upper echelon of home theatre enthusiasts at the start, but now you can Blu-Ray players for cheaper than a PS3. $300. It adds value, but it's disingenuous to claim that it didn't cost Sony anything. Now Sony's cheaper PS3 players are competing against the PS3!

It's easy to say they never had backwards compatibility, but it was over a year before they took it out. Over a year! How much more does the PS3 need to be failing by before they put it back[/i] in?[/quote]

Over a year? Where are you getting this from? The 60GB PS3 released here in March 2007 lacked the emotion engine chip, leaving PS2 BC patchy. By October 2007, BC with PS2 games had been completely removed with the release of the replacement 40GB model.

In fact, as the price has dropped over time, I'd argue that NOT having the backwards compatibility is stopping PS2 owners who are basically done with their systems to upgrade. These people are probably just replaying their old games and waiting for the PS3 price to come down. Look at Gordy. Still hasn't upgraded, but how many PS2 games do you think he's buying or playing? How many 360 games has he bought/played in this time?

BC is not a requirement for PS2 owners to buy a PS3, just an incentive. The PS3 has performed just fine without BC, and if PS2 owners are so [i]done with the system then I'm sure they don't mind if they can't play the games on another console. I think you'll find that a lot of PS2 owners are not done with the system though, games have continued to be released for it since the PS3 launched. Software sales have continued on just the same as if BC had been included. I don't know about Gordy, but I for one still use my PS2 regularly, and buy new games for it often. Why don't we ask Gordy if he'd buy a PS3 if it had BC?

[quote='nshady"]It's not right either that the Blu-Ray didn't cost them money. It cost a lot of money. Why do you think the price was $1000!? If they'd stuck with a cheaper DVD drive and started at a lower price, how many people do you think would have a PS3 by now? A lot more. Yes, it's another feather in the PS3's cap, and certainly may have helped appeal to the upper echelon of home theatre enthusiasts at the start, but now you can Blu-Ray players for cheaper than a PS3. $300. It adds value, but it's disingenuous to claim that it didn't cost Sony anything. Now Sony's cheaper PS3 players are competing against the PS3!

Oh, I'm sure putting the BD drive into the PS3 cost them money, but that's a gamble they were willing to take. I'm sure it cost them a lot less than it would have normally since they have such a large stake in the Blu-Ray format though. I agree that more people probably would have a PS3 now if they'd stuck with DVD. We can't say for sure though, people buy the console for it's games and I wonder if some of the exclusives would have been possible on DVD. More than one developer has praised the format's higher capacity. Blu-Ray is the thing that makes the PS3 different to the 360, otherwise we'd have two essentially identical consoles on the market, and since MS released first, that would be a bad thing for the PS3.

Sure, you can get Blu-Ray players for less than the cost of a PS3 now, but that's not the point. Including the feature helped move consoles when Sony needed it most. It served its purpose, and continues to be an asset for the console. Saying that Sony's players are competing against the PS3 is wrong. People who want a stand alone player will buy a stand alone player, but some of them will still look at the PS3 as a good option. For $200 more than a stand alone player, you get a fully fledged HD games console. That's little more than the cost of a PS2. Not to mention that Sony make money out of the Blu-Ray format as a whole, so any sale of a Blu-Ray product benefits them anyway. The PS3 worked well at helping to launch the format and get it into people's homes, and its success over HD-DVD will pay off for years.

Oh boy. Good move by them, might get more mainstream now, in fact I'm sure it will. I'm glad I've got my US one though, otherwise all my blu rays from there would be dead.

I'm liking Sony's new advertising campaign:

[img]http://static.gamesradar.com/images/mb/GamesRadar/us/Features/2009/08/12%20things%20didnt%20know%20about%20PS3%20Slim/PS3_ad_campaign--article_image.jpg[/img]

Yep, me too.

"It only does everything....poorly" would be a more accurate statement.

What makes you say that? I'd say it does all those things quite well.

Built in wi-fi on the 60gb is poor

Really? I've never had any trouble with it.

still looks like a bbq

I have my PS3 on the left of my TV and my 360 on the right with the external wireless network adapter.. The router is down a hallway which is about 10-15 meters away in the study. 360 picks it up fine, PS3 is full of failboat.

It worked great when I was living with my parents as the router was right outside my bedroom but now it can barely pick it up, and it can't download a thing unless i leave all the doors open, and even then it's horribly slow compared to the 360.

Apparently the PS3 will soon offer video on demand through ABC's iView, and next year offer movies and other content for paid download. They've also going to be offering an app store, similar to Apple.

Sounds good, especially considering the 360 has never offered the video on demand you can get over in other countries (and maybe never will).

When is the new version released Chief?

PS 3 has crapped itself already(something to do with the laser I believe) so now might be a good time for an upgrade(anything to keep the kids off my case. lol )   

Looks like release date is September 3rd..

Few deals going around, from Harvey Norman you get to choose a game as well. JB Hifi has a "free" HDMI cable thrown in.

Yep same day as Batman.

Looks like release date is September 3rd..

Few deals going around, from Harvey Norman you get to choose a game as well. JB Hifi has a "free" HDMI cable thrown in.

Score! $10 dodgy cable you'll have to replace in a week.

Best deal is GAME online. $479 and couriered to your door for free.

We got the slims in-store today. The box is only a bit slimmer. We didn't take one out of a box though.

.. but no game? which makes the HN deal better..

I don't see the HN deal anywhere, what games can you choose from?

http://www.harveynorman.com.au/gameshotspot/promo/ps3slim/preorder.jsp

Internet talk says it's not their dodgiest games either, some stores are allowing infamous and things.

Oh and DSE is offering PS3 + Batman for $499 next week

That's a great deal from DSE, they'll sell a heap for sure. It's good to see retailers doing some very attractive deals on the console, it's just the kind of start the Slim needs.

Edit: I'm hearing about even more deals now:

Had a chat with the guy in Game today and they have 2 bundles:

PS3 slim with The Force Unleashed for $499

PS3 slim with The Force Unleashed, NFS (Underground, I think) and UFC for $599.

Also, he mentioned they are selling the $50 HDMI cables cheaper when you buy a PS3, about $17 I think.

$17 is what it was on sale for last time we had a sale, and it's now $40 normal price, not $50.

I hadn't heard about those deals, might of been in an e-mail I missed. I'm working between two stores at the moment so I'm missing bits.

Bought one over the weekend.. $495 with the HDMI cable and Smackdown vs RAW collectors edition (probably sucks, but meh, free, comes with a wrestling bluray as well) included at JBH... and bought killzone 2 separately.

I had vouchers so had to use JBH.

Don't think the package was even advertised, but when i went to buy they said "the package deal", and I was like "well if it comes with a package deal, I guess yup"

It's still noisy, not much different to the 360, hate to think of the noise of the old one!

MY PS3 made less noise than my xbox, sure you don't have a dodgy fan or disk drive?

My 360 is quiet as a mouse.

Because it never gets turned on!

Unlike the missus! She makes a bit of noise when she's going, eh? Eh!

/got nothin'

Yeah, my Xbox is way louder than the PS3.

Espec when the Xbox is tryin hard to read a disk - my old PC with 5x80mm fans overclocked and a custom juggernaught of a CPU fan made less noise than the xbox disk drive at full speed. One of the sell points of the PS3 are how quite they are, if yours is makin noise, I'd take it back.

PS3 has a constant hum, not sure if that is normal?

360 quietens down when the fan is spun down.

Was quieter last night, was a bit cooler.. Is usually close to 30 most days up here, so does get a bit hotter up here.

I like the fact it "talks" to my TV to switch the HDMI source when you turn on the PS3, and when you turn off the TV, it turns off the ps3. It's a small thing, but saves some button pressing on remotes.

My ps3 is also a lot quieter than both our 360s. I like the matte finish of the slimline ps3. One of my friends recently got one so I was checking it out.

Our PS3 does download a lot slower than our 360 for two reasons:

1) The 360 is positioned closer to the router with less obstruction.

2) The 360 has an external antenna.

#2 is the main reason. Anything with an external antenna has better reception than an in-built antenna. My laptop has built in wireless and cuts out from the lounge room every now and then (it has a WiFi 5300, which is N speed).

Worth noting that the 360's Network Adapter is only a/b/g though.

Not sure wireless would be too good for gaming though? high latency means dodgy pings.

Seems fine when I go on  LIVE.

The 60GB PS3 has worse wireless than the slim though

Not sure wireless would be too good for gaming though? high latency means dodgy pings.

Exactly, you're better off puttin your modem next to you console and having your PC wireless for browsing, cheaper and better gaming - ofcourse there's the issue of gettin a phone cord to your TV area.