PlayStation 3 Slim/Price Cut set for TGS according to PSW


Recommended Posts

I heard they're removing 360 BC this time around.

Wait, you guys didn't know? If you put the 360 DVD in upside down it plays the 360 games at half the frame rate and with 20% less resolution!

I'm sorry but what the **** does that have to do with this thread.

You're the one that's always going off about people getting off topic.

I asked a legitimate question as Sony is notorious for removing features to save a buck.

I'm sorry but what the **** does that have to do with this thread.

You're the one that's always going off about people getting off topic.

I asked a legitimate question as Sony is notorious for removing features to save a buck.

I answered your question.

I heard they're removing 360 BC this time around.

Wait, you guys didn't know? If you put the 360 DVD in upside down it plays the 360 games at half the frame rate and with 20% less resolution!

On a serious note, only rumour of removal so far is other operating system support (Linux), which seems unfounded as that's fully software based support, nothing hardware wise to remove to discontinue support. The source that rumour comes from says nothing else is being removed except internal nuts and bolts that don't affect us.

Something I've always wondered about: Sony loses money on every PS3 purchased, right? They make their money back through sales of games - that's a well known fact. But we always see stories of labs and departments buying loads of PS3s and networking them together as a cluster to form a rather cheap, but effective supercomputer. Well, how does Sony make ANY money from this?

I mean, I've seen pictures of labs with literally hundreds of PS3s all tied together I very much doubt that they're also used for COD.

If the rumour is true that Sony needs to sell 5 games to make a profit, then that's like 500 extra games they need to sell. Sounds to me like it's not inconceivable for Sony to remove OtherOS support, at least in the meantime.

Something I've always wondered about: Sony loses money on every PS3 purchased, right? They make their money back through sales of games - that's a well known fact. But we always see stories of labs and departments buying loads of PS3s and networking them together as a cluster to form a rather cheap, but effective supercomputer. Well, how does Sony make ANY money from this?

I mean, I've seen pictures of labs with literally hundreds of PS3s all tied together I very much doubt that they're also used for COD.

If the rumour is true that Sony needs to sell 5 games to make a profit, then that's like 500 extra games they need to sell. Sounds to me like it's not inconceivable for Sony to remove OtherOS support, at least in the meantime.

Who said that?

And labs buying loads of PS3s and networking them will be few and far between. It's not like 2 million of the install base is sold to labs. In these cases anyway depending on what the labs are researching they could be offering other deals with Sony such as percentages in the projects or whatever, I doubt they were clear cut buying 100 PS3s at $500/600 a pop.

I mean, even the Warhawk devs were allowed a load of PS3s for the dedicated online servers

warha.jpg

It isn't inconceivable for Sony to remove OtherOS support, but I still don't think much of the rumour yet. Can't you find out anyway? :p

edit: Apparently these sources are saying ready for sale IN summer :blink: http://japan.internet.com/finanews/20090630/5.html and http://udn.com/NEWS/STOCK/STO3/4990039.shtml When is the next games conferenced? August?

What? The PS2 Slim added a ethernet port the PS2 Fat did not have

..but lost HDD support in the process.

And as I posted in the 3.0 thread, removing OtherOS support would also help streamline the XMB and memory management, no?

Who said that?

And labs buying loads of PS3s and networking them will be few and far between. It's not like 2 million of the install base is sold to labs. In these cases anyway depending on what the labs are researching they could be offering other deals with Sony such as percentages in the projects or whatever, I doubt they were clear cut buying 100 PS3s at $500/600 a pop.

I mean, even the Warhawk devs were allowed a load of PS3s for the dedicated online servers

warha.jpg

It isn't inconceivable for Sony to remove OtherOS support, but I still don't think much of the rumour yet. Can't you find out anyway? :p

edit: Apparently these sources are saying ready for sale IN summer :blink: http://japan.internet.com/finanews/20090630/5.html and http://udn.com/NEWS/STOCK/STO3/4990039.shtml When is the next games conferenced? August?

You'd be surprised. Don't think of it in terms of blowing $50,000 for the sake of it, think of it in terms of what $50,000 gets you, computationally. A similarly priced machine from the likes of IBM wouldn't be anywhere near as powerful for floating point operations (i.e. the kinds of operations scientists use). Considering the power behind that many PS3s, $50,000 is actually quite a bargain.

That's kind of what I'm getting at, of all the PS3 owners out there, how many actually make good use of OtherOS support AND buy games?

The "Sony needs to sell 5 games per PS3" thing is quite an old statement, but I believe that figure was accurate back in the PS2 days and the PS3 costs a lot more. Even if it's not 5 games, even if it's only 1 or 2, it still stands to reason, a PS3 bought strictly for "OtherOS" usage isn't ever going to make Sony any money. I think from a strictly business point of view, that rumour makes a lot of sense, "OtherOS" doesn't ever make Sony money, but it can often cost them money, so remove it. Particularly as it seems this PS3 Slim, if it's real (I ain't commenting either way) according to the rumours is strictly a cost-cutting plan by Sony, it adds even more weight to it.

I guess we'll have to wait and see what happens.

P.S. Maxconsole doesn't like hotlinking =P

Kotaku running the story now

PS3 Slim Entering Production, Ready By July

According to Chinese site UDN, Sony have signed production contracts with two companies to begin manufacture of the rumoured PS3 "Slim", with a delivery date of...oh, next month!

Now, with a PS3 price cut heavily expected around August, and with stocks of the existing 80GB PS3 supposedly dwindling, a July delivery date for the "new" PS3 makes sense. Ship it out in July, have it ready to sell in stores for August.

That is, if it's real. Which, remember, it may not be!

Source: http://kotaku.com/5305021/ps3-slim-enterin...n-ready-by-july

The Games Convention is the 31st of July to the 2nd of August :shifty: - http://www.gamesconvention.com/

In the past I think PSP hardware has been announced there, and I know for definite PlayTV was unveiled there. European event, PS3 probably has it's largest install base in Europe, would be a good time to cut the price/announce Slim.

Then they can show off GT5 at TGS in September :p

IMO the ps3 slim is ugly

You should wait to see the actual console, not cell phone pictures of questionable validity (prototype/incomplete/not even real?). The leaks look far from hot, but I have no doubts they're far from finished produce off a production line if they are real.

Doesnt really matter when there were like only 2 games that used the hdd. Resident Evil online and Final Fantasy.

I bet you would have seen more if Sony had supported it more. MS didn't have the in-game music patent yet.

PS4 will come out in about 6 - 8 years if you listen to sony

When did they say that? Those time lines would fit in with their "10 year life span" but as everyone knows, Sony releases the next gen before they release they cut off support to the successor. I'd say it'll be sooner than 6 years and certainly not as much as 8. The market will have moved on by then, especially given they haven't had the same foot hold they had with the PS1 and PS2.

I bet you would have seen more if Sony had supported it more. MS didn't have the in-game music patent yet.

Why do people keep spreading this silly rumour? The PS3 DOES do in-game music, it just doesn't do it very well. It's up to developers to support it and most don't bother because it can create a whole bunch of extra issues they have to deal with (slowdowns, glitches, audio corruption). Microsoft built it into the 360 from the off and made sure that it didn't interfere with anything else. Essentially, Microsoft's implementation is much much better.

I don't know why people bring up that patent thing, it's rediculous, clearly if that patent was actually a factor, then NO game on the PS3 would support ingame music, but a few actually do. What makes them so special?

Why do people keep spreading this silly rumour? The PS3 DOES do in-game music, it just doesn't do it very well. It's up to developers to support it and most don't bother because it can create a whole bunch of extra issues they have to deal with (slowdowns, glitches, audio corruption). Microsoft built it into the 360 from the off and made sure that it didn't interfere with anything else. Essentially, Microsoft's implementation is much much better.

I don't know why people bring up that patent thing, it's rediculous, clearly if that patent was actually a factor, then NO game on the PS3 would support ingame music, but a few actually do. What makes them so special?

I've stated here countless times before that the patent MS holds is about assigning custom playlists for games, not In-game music in general. Their patent describes how to (as an example) automatically play Rock music when you boot up Halo, or Thriller during a GoW session. No one bothered to read it I guess.

Why do people keep spreading this silly rumour? The PS3 DOES do in-game music, it just doesn't do it very well. It's up to developers to support it and most don't bother because it can create a whole bunch of extra issues they have to deal with (slowdowns, glitches, audio corruption). Microsoft built it into the 360 from the off and made sure that it didn't interfere with anything else. Essentially, Microsoft's implementation is much much better.

I don't know why people bring up that patent thing, it's rediculous, clearly if that patent was actually a factor, then NO game on the PS3 would support ingame music, but a few actually do. What makes them so special?

The patent argument is that MS own a patent for universal implementation of an in-game music system through the operating system. The way for Sony to get around that was leave it up to developers to include support on a per-game basis on their own behalf therefore meaning Sony aren't infringing on MS' universal system. PS3 developers are implementing custom music support in their games, not Sony. MS couldn't file a patent to stop developers doing it.

The developers of Super Star Dust HD had custom music support before Sony even released firmware 2.4 (the firmware that brought in-game XMB).

Sony may have already found a loophole in the patent to allow them to provide custom soundtracks for particular games, as long as the functionality is not system-wide. In this way they could avoid the patent. Microsoft could charge Sony for the privilege, but it would be a lot of wasted effort to patent this particular feature and then allow competitors to implement it. Therefore, when Sony’s in-game XMB eventually comes around, custom soundtracks might be left on the cutting room floor. It will all depend on how constricting the patent actually is, and how kind Microsoft are feeling. Reasons for the in-game XMB delay may be found here - Sony are trying their best to get custom soundtracks installed legally.

You can't keep shouting at us when it's news sites documenting the patent that way - http://www.ripten.com/2008/03/31/microsoft...om-soundtracks/

I've stated here countless times before that the patent MS holds is about assigning custom playlists for games, not In-game music in general. Their patent describes how to (as an example) automatically play Rock music when you boot up Halo, or Thriller during a GoW session. No one bothered to read it I guess.

Perhaps, but considering that Sony can't seem to get ingame music working for the vast majority of their games, I'd bet that play-lists are the least of their priorities.

Edit: AB: That would all make sense, except for the titles that DO play music, it's done through the XMB still.

Perhaps, but considering that Sony can't seem to get ingame music working for the vast majority of their games, I'd bet that play-lists are the least of their priorities.

Edit: AB: That would all make sense, except for the titles that DO play music, it's done through the XMB still.

Yes but it's a per-game basis, it's not a universal system. Developers have to actively code their game to support custom music, there's no code in the PS3 firmware that mutes a game and plays custom music over the top of it unless the game has been coded to support it.

It's my understanding you can play custom music over any 360 game.

Doesnt really matter when there were like only 2 games that used the hdd. Resident Evil online and Final Fantasy.

And SOCOM, and SOCOM 2, SOCOM 3, and Sims 2, as well as other popular titles...but yeah, I used a USB stick instead.

Yes but it's a per-game basis, it's not a universal system. Developers have to actively code their game to support custom music, there's no code in the PS3 firmware that mutes a game and plays custom music over the top of it unless the game has been coded to support it.

It's my understanding you can play custom music over any 360 game.

The 360 is no different in its operation, the difference is that its a requirement from Microsoft that developers support it. After all, how does the 360 know the difference between say..a stream of ingame music and a stream of sound effects? The 360's OS tells the game to stop playing music. The developer then does whatever they need to do to stop said music until the 360 says it's ok to play it again. The PS3, for the few titles that do work, is exactly the same with the exception that it's not mandatory and it's not mandatory because half the time, it doesn't work very well.

The 360 is no different in its operation, the difference is that its a requirement from Microsoft that developers support it. After all, how does the 360 know the difference between say..a stream of ingame music and a stream of sound effects? The 360's OS tells the game to stop playing music. The developer then does whatever they need to do to stop said music until the 360 says it's ok to play it again. The PS3, for the few titles that do work, is exactly the same with the exception that it's not mandatory and it's not mandatory because half the time, it doesn't work very well.

Kushan I don't know why you're struggling to get this :p

It's not about how it finally ends up working on the PS3, it's that according to beliefs behind the patent Sony can't do it automatically for each game because that would endure a universal system like what MS has in place, and infringe on the patent. The SDK or whatever for 360 development probably has had a "switch" or piece of code from the start that understands what/where the stream of audio getting passed from the disc to console is for every single game due to how the operating system handles it.

I'm no experienced coder, so excuse the patched together terminology.

If we are to believe how the patent is interpreted the only way Sony can give us in-game music is to let developers completely code everything on their end, when you go to the XMB to play music it's the game stopping it's own audio, not the PS3 with some universal command. Which explains why different games on the PS3 have different ways of doing in-game music.

Burnout for example requires you to go through their own system in-game, other games you can just bring up the XMB and start a song.

The PS3 has been able to play MP3s from day one, all the OS is doing is using that feature, it's the PS3 games that are pausing audio and overlaying the music on top of themselves whilst running for in-game music which avoids stepping on the patent.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Removed the blue and underline as you did not post a link. This would also  be considered spamming.
    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
    • Cheers everyone for the replies. It's been very useful. 👍
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      jessse3334 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      506
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      196
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      153
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      72
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      66
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!