firstly. not £299. gonna be £200-£250. also. there is no point of the ps3 unless u want it to be slim. no new ports (usb card reader), not faster. its wider thatn the normal ps3. and they still have the the fat junk @ the bottom just to place the usb ports. y not put it @ the back or on the front where nuttin is used. theres gonna be the old ps2 power plug, which most probably has an external power box.
its coming out in september.
also. the new psp go seems good with its app sotre and psp minis. the firmware is kool. but they need a big step on psp, they need to put 2 anolog sticks. and just make a new step!
this is : http://static.stuff.co.nz/1250634189/538/2766538.jpg
the hardrive is on the bottom, with a flap.
i dont care if u warn me bout triple posting. this thread is so dumb. wizzle has no knowledge of games!!!
an infraction seems more adequate then - zidane
Last edited by zidane21ps; 08-24-2009 at 01:11 PM.
Also, the purpose of the thread is to tell others about what happened in Sony's Conference. What's so bad about making a thread that the PS3 slim has been revealed, and Sony cut the price? Sure maybe I did messed up the price for the UK cause I thought IGN was using the "£" symbol when instead they used the "€". Even if the slim is the same thing as the fat one, people don't care. They all want a low price, because that's the only problem of the PS3.
By the way, learn how to use multi quote. :p
The point of the slim is to do the same thing as the larger version, but be cheaper. I don't think anyone has a problem with that. At least they shouldn't, but people are bitchy and weird.
actually, some of you *antec* should go to gizmodo, or endgadget. they've both been reporting that the cell processor of the ps3 slim is a faster version than that of the fat. also the ps3 slim can broadcast the new format for HD audio through the HDMI. the fat can't.
although the average users won't notice the changes. and the cell processor change won't affect gameplay, as developers would have to develop for the slower processor
IGN did a comparison, its covers mostly everything.
I find it interesting that the PS3's are PS1 compatible, but not PS2. I wasn't aware of that before the IGN report. Guess they kept it cause playing those games must be like farting for the PS3.
This decision has nothing to do with current owners of the PS3. It is a response to the constant demand for a price drop. The problem before was that the system itself had such a high production value that already at $599 they were losing money. While this expected and most systems are sold at a loss(they make the money off the games), there is a point where a company has to decide when it is too much of a loss.
However, it was an overpriced system that couldn't compete at it's current price tag. The only solution was the PS3 slim: cutting the production costs so that the price tag could be lowered without a huge loss with each system sold.
Also, they are discontinuing the production of the older systems. They have no reason to continue to sell those. The PS3 slim is cheaper to make, cheaper to sell, and has the largest hard drive yet. It is superior to the old one in all but some near unnoticeable ways. They have stopped production on the older systems, cutting their price too, and letting their inventory run out. Apparently acceptable losses.
Oh yeah, and sadly, backward compatibility is apparently dead. Which sucks a lot.
im not sure if the info is entirely correct, but it seems correct
check out the different logo,
=O different logo!!
yes tom..different logo
theres some more stuff about the pstripple slim
and all the other info on it with tons of pictures is here