Slim PlayStation 3 becomes official

Hot on the heels of this morning’s Kmart ad, Sony has officially unveiled the new, slim version of its PlayStation 3 console. According to Shacknews, there’s only a single unit, and it has a $299 price tag and a 120GB hard drive. Sony has also dropped the prices of the old 80GB and 120GB consoles to $299 and $399, respectively.

 

You can view more images at both Shacknews and the official PlayStation.Blog Flickr page.

Shacknews notes that the slim PS3 won’t support different operating systems—so no Linux. In a separate report, Engadget adds that the new console won’t support PlayStation 2 games. On the flip side, power consumption will go down from 280W to 250W, and the weight will drop from 11 lbs to 7 lbs.

Expect to get your hands on the slimmed-down PlayStation 3 in the first week of September.

Comments closed
    • turrican
    • 11 years ago

    No Linux and no PS2 games. On the flip side, I should be happy that it matches my curtains and I’m contributing with 30W to save the planet.

    I see

    You can keep it, thanks. Even a cracked old XBox is better than that POS

    • UberGerbil
    • 11 years ago

    Reportedly the Cell gets shrunk to 45nm for this refresh too.
    §[<http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=16039<]§

    • Dr_b_
    • 11 years ago

    Yeah no Linux other-os support? why take that away.

    • Thresher
    • 11 years ago

    Meh. I’d almost rather have a second XBox 360 for streaming into my family room than one of these. Had this been the launch product, I probably would have been all over it and I imagine Sony would be leading. But instead, they came out with a product that was 3 or 4 years ahead of its time and the developers decided not to wait for the thing to catch on.

    So, all the games I want to play are on the 360. A few are multiplatform, and none are Sony exclusives. I have no doubt that the PS3 is superior as far as the hardware is concerned. But Sony is in a hole with developers and it will take a few years to dig themselves out.

    MS is pulling the Pro and most likely reducing the price of the Platinum to $299. I wouldn’t be surprised if they dropped it another $20-$50 before Christmas, making it even more difficult for Sony.

      • swaaye
      • 11 years ago

      I wouldn’t be so sure about PS3’s hardware being superior to 360’s in any game-related way. Aside from the quieter optical drive anyway.

    • psyclone
    • 11 years ago

    For those interested Sony still has the $100 off 1st purchase of $299 or more by getting the Sony/Chase credit card and making your purchase at sonystyle.com and then you can get the slim PS3 for the slim price of $199.00

    Oh and enjoy those EUROS you supermodels you, as you don’t get this deal in Europe either. 😉

    • ronch
    • 11 years ago

    Looks to me like a real home appliance now.

    • kravo
    • 11 years ago

    Am I the only one who feels himself shamelessly robbed, because every single hardware maker makes a big deal on the dollar/euro current rate? why does a hardware cost €299 if it should be only €210, which is $299?
    They used to argue that it´s cuz of the shipping cost, but that´s bulls*, since everything is made in Asia!
    Or is it that VAT in the US is so low???
    Muggers!

      • gtoulouzas
      • 11 years ago

      The math does not add up, whichever way you cut it. Even with an added 19% VAT, at 300 euros the Playstation3 is still overpriced, compared to America, by a percentage of ~20%.

      • Hattig
      • 11 years ago

      Prices in the US don’t include sales tax, whereas they do in Europe.

      In addition there are import duties in Europe on certain classes of electronics, which the PS3 surely falls under. That will add onto the price.

      In addition Europe has stronger consumer protection laws, which mean that warranties are longer, and that’s an additional cost that must be factored in.

      In the end the PS3 is 20% more than the US price in the UK. That’s still annoyingly more expensive, but it’s not as bad as it could be. They could make is £229 instead of £249 I’m sure.

    • derFunkenstein
    • 11 years ago

    I actually don’t think it looks bad – the matte black is nicer to me than the piano black because piano attracts fingerprints.

    • colinstu
    • 11 years ago

    Why do people care about the backwards compatibility? that was gone, looong ago on the PS3.

    And,
    1) Some PS2 games didn’t even work
    2) Some required older accesories
    3) You probably had a PS2 before anyways, and the PS2 slim is really cheap and small already.

    So…

    Looking at the pics, doesn’t look like taking the harddrive out is as “easy” as before… looks like you need to rip the whole thing open.

    It also looks like the slim is much deeper then it use to be, but the thin-ness is nice. I’m reealy curious to see what this thing looks like on the inside (cooling, mobo, external psu, etc).

    • swaaye
    • 11 years ago

    Whoa 250W! I didn’t know that these things pulled in that kind of power. Is that just the PSU’s max rating?

      • Xenolith
      • 11 years ago

      Real world power consumption is around 200 watts when playing. Link is for a study done a couple years back. Another reason the Wii is a popular choice….order of magnitude less power usage.

      §[<http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/home-entertainment/gaming-console-power-consumption-revisited-238837.php<]§

        • kravo
        • 11 years ago

        thanx for the link!

        /[<"So yes, the Wii costs the least, burns calories, and saves you money over time. Like the complete opposite of our wives. "<]/ lol

        • Hattig
        • 11 years ago

        I’ve read of power consumption of 135W for the more recent PS3s.

        This site suggests first generation PS3s used 180W or thereabouts:
        §[<http://www.hardcoreware.net/xbox-360-ps3-wii-power-consumption/<]§ So either the PS3 slim will use around 100W compared to the previous generation, or it will use around 130W compared to the first generation.

    • Prion
    • 11 years ago

    > Sony has also dropped the prices of the old 80GB and 120GB consoles to $299 and $399, respectively.

    You mean the old 80GB and 160GB models?

    • leor
    • 11 years ago

    heh, i have the most valuable PS3 on the planet – an original 60gb with an upgraded HDD.

    i guess early adoption does have its benefits sometimes.

      • lethal
      • 11 years ago

      Wanna trade for a first gen 360 ;)?

      I don’t have a 360 but its pretty amusing seeing how the both console’s hardware implementations had diametrically opposite progressions.

      • FroBozz_Inc
      • 11 years ago

      Me too, upgraded to 320GB 🙂
      I like my real PS2 compatibility, card reader, and (4) USB’s.

    • stmok
    • 11 years ago

    No Linux in Slim version? Those academics/researchers and potential Cell programmers will be disappointed.

    PS3 is a good affordable Cell based platform for clustering nodes, and learning how the Cell processor worked.

    • SomeOtherGeek
    • 11 years ago

    Can this thing fold like it is doing now? With the power draw, um, maybe it is…?

    • CodeMonkey
    • 11 years ago

    I have a 60 GB Playstation 3 and I much prefer the looks of my version to the slim one – the matte finish they used makes it look cheap. Also, they replaced the fancier power and eject “buttons” that you just brush your finger against with push buttons. I guess they were cutting costs wherever they could.

    The 2 things I do really like about the slim version are the lower noise level and lower power consumption. Mine has PS2 compatibility but those games pale in comparison to PS3 games so I wouldn’t miss that at all.

      • SGT Lindy
      • 11 years ago

      Lower noise level? My August 2008 PS3 (.65nm 280watt) is silent, especially next to my RROD maker.

        • DancingWind
        • 11 years ago

        Yea .. Mine PS3 is quiter than my PC (witch isnt loud) and not even comaprable to 360 shreaker … on the other hand – ppl you cut volume almoust in half and power draw by only a little over 10% ? … I asume Slim wount be as quiet as the phat one unleass its PSU is outside … hate those briks.
        No all we need is more killer games

    • Corrado
    • 11 years ago

    I’m waiting for GameStop to drop the price of their used consoles. Should drop to $249 or $199. I’ll pick one of those up once the prices drop.

      • SGT Lindy
      • 11 years ago

      I had read this before. There is no doubt that Sony plans to release this for the PS3. The question is how.

      Will it work with PS2 games on a disk in a PS3. Or will it be for PS2 games downloaded from PSN…paid for again for some.

      I think the latter.

    • MadManOriginal
    • 11 years ago

    Cripes the PS3 draws more power than my PC. I know it’s powerful in its own way but it still surprised me.

      • shank15217
      • 11 years ago

      Its max power draw, not necessarily avg. power.

        • MadManOriginal
        • 11 years ago

        That doesn’t change my statement although perhaps simultaneous P95+Furmark don’t truly max out my PC it makes power draw as high as I can get it – in other words my max power draw is under 250W.

          • SGT Lindy
          • 11 years ago

          So do you have a 500+ Watt power supply in your PC, like most PC building geeks?

            • swaaye
            • 11 years ago

            It’s actually a good idea to run a PSU at around 50% max load because PSU ratings have more to them than one would think. You’ll usually get a quieter setup and you aren’t going to save much money or anything else by not over-budgeting the power a bit.

            By the way, are you saying that you are non-geek?

            • MadManOriginal
            • 11 years ago

            No I do not. The system is an e8400@3.6GHz (very little additional voltage needed) on a DFI P45 Jr, 4GB DDR2 (2x2GB,) a 9600GT 512MB, a WD 1TB Black HD, Xonar D2X, and some fans. The PSU is a Corsair VX450. It pulls ~100W idle and ~225W peak of course that’s from the wall so internally the PSU is putting out less.

            However I hardly think a quality 500-550W PSU that’s also 80+ rated would change the power draw from the wall by more than a few watts, in fact I know so because when I first did the build I had a less efficient non-80+ Silverstone OP650 (used to have a 65nm quad core and higher-end video card) and the power draw under the same testing was only ~10W higher.

            I suppose I could get power draw higher by running P95+Furmark and burning a few DVDs but that would literally never happen plus PS3s don’t burn discs. Maybe I’ll try it for kicks though to see how much that draws.

            • zima
            • 11 years ago

            Though Bluray could be somewhat more power hungry…plus the console can quite often use all its hardware at close to 100% capacity (that’s the goal when writing games for them…) + reading hdd/disc.

            You’d have to somehow saturate both cpu and gpu, while performing reads/writes on storage devices…all while ensuring processes don’t get in their way.

    • ironoutsider
    • 11 years ago

    No PS2 Games? How is PS2 = $100.00 + PS3 $299 cheaper than PS3 (ps2 capable) 399.99 ?? Doesn’t make any sense to me to cut the PS2 capability. Especially since some of those games are pretty good. Xbox 360 still plays a lot of xbox games at the same price… Still seems like PS3 users get the short end of the stick in this “deal”.

      • CasbahBoy
      • 11 years ago

      The PS2 backwards compatibility has been ‘cut’ and not in production for a good while, it didn’t just now happen.

      • potatochobit
      • 11 years ago

      the theory is:

      developers see that PS2 games sell very well
      so why code a game for PS3 which is a headache and costs more

        • ironoutsider
        • 11 years ago

        I’m confused, PS3 already couldn’t play PS2 games?!

          • StashTheVampede
          • 11 years ago

          It was a mix as to which model played PS2 games. Some played via hardware, others via software. I have the both at home and work fine for PS2. Over time, few care about BC, honestly.

          • SNM
          • 11 years ago

          The PS3 could play PS2 games at launch, but it only took about six months for the backwards-compatibility to be moved from hardware (the launch PS3 contained basically an entire PS2) to software, and within 2 years of launch it was completely gone.

      • cobalt
      • 11 years ago

      There’s a bit of speculation that PS2 games could be coming in downloadable form to the PSN store at some point. I’m sure Sony knows there’s money to be made in a download-only Ico re-release, for instance. Just like the FFVII PS1 D/L release. Who knows — in download form, they might be able to tweak the code to work better with an EE/GS pure software emulation than if they had to let it work with the original discs….

        • burntham77
        • 11 years ago

        I am sure a lot of people would jump at that. Marvel vs Capcom 2 just hit PSN, so that might spark some other games. I would love to see Final Fantasy XII, Dragon Quest 8 and a few other PS2 games as downloads.

    • Jive
    • 11 years ago
    • Skrying
    • 11 years ago

    Eeek. Sony, I think most people just wanted a smaller version. Not a cheaper looking version.

      • internetsandman
      • 11 years ago

      agreed. If I were to have one in my home right now, I would actually choose the larger one, simply cause it’s so much nicer to look at

      • xtalentx
      • 11 years ago

      I think it looks better. I wasn’t a huge fan of the looks of the first one.

      • VILLAIN_xx
      • 11 years ago

      Nicely put. I like my prettier bbw version.

      • SGT Lindy
      • 11 years ago

      Cuz you spend soooo much time looking at the console vs playing it.

        • Skrying
        • 11 years ago

        What unwritten law says you can’t have both? Nope, doesn’t appear to be such a law. I guess that makes your comment mute. I like my devices to be both functional and good looking. Game consoles also spend most of their time in the off position.

          • MadManOriginal
          • 11 years ago

          q[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLwYpSCrlHU<]§ :D

      • PetMiceRnice
      • 11 years ago

      To me, smaller is better when it comes to things like this. If it has it where it counts, I don’t really care a lot about appearances. Too bad about the lack of PS2 backwards compatibility though.

        • Skrying
        • 11 years ago

        I agree on the small part. We all wanted a smaller device. Just most of us assumed it would also keep the high end entertainment equipment look and not the gain the cheap-netbook look. It’s like Sony was listening to all of those “get rid of the gloss!” cries about LCD screens but screwed up on where they removed the gloss from!

      • burntham77
      • 11 years ago

      Yeah, where is the shiny?

    • Big-Mac
    • 11 years ago

    i think it’s NO slim enough.

    • potatochobit
    • 11 years ago

    the glossy black looks more snazzy

      • Lord.Blue
      • 11 years ago

      Well, there’s always masking tape and some Krylon.

      • Meadows
      • 11 years ago

      If only it wasn’t for the retarded Spiderman typeface, the original would look better.

      I always say that thinness shouldn’t be a supporting element of fashion.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This