So it seems Sony is once again changing the SKU setup for the PS3. My honest question is why on EARTH can't Sony leave this alone? Suddenly, they're pickier than a stuck up prom queen deciding which lucky guy gets to...well, you see where I'm going with this. First we have 60 and 20. Then we kill those and swap them out to 40 and 80. Now, we ditch 80 and we'll come up with....120? 160? 1TB? Where will it end Sony? And the best part of coming up with a new system structure is coming up with a new set of features.
First, we had full backwards compatibility and a few differences like USB port numbers and card reader slots. Then Europe got shafted with no Hardware BC before it got pulled altogether. We're done to NO Hardware Backwards Compatibility anywhere, Software in one of the 2 units on the market (despite Sony's claims that BC was very important to them) and now, we're about to have a setup where the only machines available to purchase that will play PS2 games are PS2s. It seems clearer and clearer to me as time goes on that Sony hasn't got a clue what its doing with its hardware. But in all fairness, its not entirely their fault. They've never had problems selling hardware before.
Think back to the PS1 and PS2. Sony never had to deal with hardware revisions until well into the system's life span. The slimline PS2 didn't come out until around 2004 or so, a full 5 years into the system's life(and at that point the PS3 was supposed to be out late 2005/early 2006), and the PSX mini didn't come out until after the PS2 was already out. PS3, on the other hand, has had issues selling from day 1. With a $600 price point, it was no wonder they had issues pushing them out the door, especially with no good exclusives and 2 consoles at lower prices. Lord knows how much it cost per unit, but it was probably a hefty subsidy that Sony was paying.
Then jump forward to when they switched to software emulation. This was a trick that allowed them to still offer 'full' backwards compatibility, but at a fraction of the cost. Awesome, so the savings will be passed on to us? Nope, now Sony was just spending less per system. This of course became the norm once the 80 gig model became the standard (after that little 'price drop' incident). After the 60 and 20 gig were gone, we figured 'Ok, its a little different but we'll live" and suddenly, they drop the 40 gig model on us, with a twist; NO backwards compatibility. Apparently, Sony just thinks of us, the consumer as a small child. If you complain about something long enough because it isn't just the way you want it, they'll take it away from you altogether.
So now, we're at an 80 gig model, and a 40 gig model. And what happens? Sony kills the 80 gig. To focus on the 40 gig and...what exactly? We're not sure, but Sony's logic is 'Well, just about everyone already HAS a PS2, so why include one in the PS3?" Well, maybe some of us DON'T have a PS2, and were looking forward to purchasing a PS3 partially FOR the PS2. Ever think of that? But mainly, its such a pain when the company continues to change every 5 minutes. First they said they didn't think they'd have more than one SKU. Then they said backwards compatibility was a priority for them. They also said that Rumble wasn't important, calling it a 'last gen feature." And while we're at it, Sony also said we'd look at the PS3 and think "I want to work more hours to buy one." Thus far, I think we've proven that Sony shouldn't be taken at their word. So when they do finally announce the 100 gig PS3 (120? 160?) don't be surprised if Sony promises the world (In addition to full backwards compatibility, it will walk your dog, file your taxes and blow up your mother-in-law) and delivers...well...squat (It's actually made out of brick; which is impressive because its also been known to spontaneously combust!")
|
