shams said: Why do you want a PS3? If I got it - it would be to play games. And the 20Gig model plays all the games, just as well as the other models. Hard disks are upgradable. What else is missing again? The only reason Sony is not selling the 20Gig model - is lack of profit. Its exactly the same strategy they are showing with the price cut. Not selling anything for a lower price - but giving you "more" (perceived value) for the same price. Good luck to 'em.Â

Yep, when Sony killed the 20GB model, it pushed back any PS3 purchase for me. I don't need HDD space and I don't want wireless. It sucks for gaming. I want a wired connection so the 60GB model was a waste of time for me.

If the 20GB was $400 right now and the 60GB $500, I would strongly consider buying a PS3 today. But, with the price still sitting at $500 for the cheapest model, it will have to wait until 2008.

NorthStar said: Why would you even suspect the 20 GB model to come back it has been at least 2 months since the 20GB model got the AX? And if you post here you probably already knew that. (so you really did not think about buying one for a second) .  Really the 60 GB PS3 at 499.99 might be the best deal in video game console History, the 100 dollars brings it in line with the High end 360 and you get way more from the system for your money. Just to recap are you really going to base your gaming decision on 100 dollars? over 6-7 year (the very least a life of a Sony system will be) that translates to about a 15-20 dollar a year cost. Sony said they were going to a direction that was going to make more storage a must (I for one hate Microsoft's 3 headed red ring breathing monster for offering a range of 0-120 gb) Please let us know if you can think of any tech device that can do as much as a PS3 with a cost of$500 or less.

Okay, for the one millionth time, I don't care about the capabilities of the PS3. I don't want it for Blu-Ray, I'm not interested in the format. I don't need a web browser or Linux, I already have three computers that do a better job of everything except gaming than the PS3.

There's an 80 GB Playstation 3 now? Damn it, I bought the 60 GB Playstation 3, because it was the best one, and now there's a better one? I hate that. My Playstation 3 isn't the best one anymore, and not only that, it devalued by $100. Funny thing is, the 60 GB, and 80 GB Playstation 3, are both still more expensive than the Xbox 360, and Xbox 360 Elite. Do I have to sell my 60 GB Playstation 3 now, and buy the 80 GB? Damn, that's going to drive me nuts. I have the best Xbox 360, best Wii (well, there's only one version), and had the best Playstation 3, but Sony had to release one with 20 GB more. Drat! Drag rabbit! Damn! Dang nabbit!

No. Because the 60 gig was a better value than the 20 gig, while the 80 gig clearly is not.

Why didn't the 20 gig sell? I proposed an answer to that in another price drop thread, and I like it so much I'm going to stick with it. It didn't sell because the people who buy consoles in the first year are the "first five million who will pay anything" crowd Sony used to talk about. The ones who camp out on launch night, who pay absurd prices for systems with no games--they don't want a budget version of the machine. Now, with the first price drop and with the first avalanche of good titles on the horizon, the normal people are crawling out of the woodwork to buy. Some of these people might be interested in a 20 gig version, if it still existed. But a lot of them are just slightly less hardcore consumers, still interested in the "full" PS3, but not willing to pay quite as much for it.

So in response to people saying the cost of entry hasn't changed...

At launch, the options were between the 20 gig with no wireless/card reader, and the 60 gig with them. For me, wireless support on my console is a must. The extra 40 gigs is strongly preferred. And the card reader is a nice bonus that might get some use a couple times a year. As far as I was concerned, therefore, the 20 gig version might as well not have existed.

I'm sure a lot of other people were in the same boat. For us, the cost of entry at launch was $599. Today it's $499. That is a de facto price drop.

Think of it this way, if Sony never released the 80 GB Playstation 3, everyone would consider the 60 GB Playstation 3 to have had a price cut. But Sony wanted to do better, and released the 80 GB Playstation 3, coincidentally at the same price the 60 GB one was at, and lowered the 60 GB one. So does that change everything? No! The 60 GB Playstation 3 got its price cut, and the 80 GB one replaced it as the most expensive. If you don't want the 80 GB one, than you don't have to get it.

Wait a second... What 80 GB Playstation 3?

http://search.ebay.com/playstation-3-80_W0QQ_trksidZm37QQfromZR40

There's none of eBay. Have they not released it yet? Will it soon exist? Has the 60 GB already got its price cut? If so, and since the 80 GB is not out yet, I guess the Playstation 3 has officially got its price cut.

Borkachev said: Why didn't the 20 gig sell? I proposed an answer to that in another price drop thread, and I like it so much I'm going to stick with it. It didn't sell because the people who buy consoles in the first year are the "first five million who will pay anything" crowd Sony used to talk about.Â

Actually, by all reports it didn't sell because only approximately 1 out of 10 PS3s shipped at launch were 20GB models. Hard to sell many consoles when you import them in that capacity. It's rumored that Sony was avoiding importing them because the loss per unit on the console was about $80 more than the 60GB model. 

But you're right, the initial adopters are the ones who will buy the most expensive version. But right now, if Sony had actually announced a real price drop, that 20GB version at $400 would be very appealing to people like me.

But when I walk into the store, I still see a PS3 for $500. The only difference is that this PS3 has more stuff I don't care about.

rocketpig said: Borkachev said: Why didn't the 20 gig sell? I proposed an answer to that in another price drop thread, and I like it so much I'm going to stick with it. It didn't sell because the people who buy consoles in the first year are the "first five million who will pay anything" crowd Sony used to talk about. Actually, by all reports it didn't sell because only approximately 1 out of 10 PS3s shipped at launch were 20GB models. Hard to sell many consoles when you import them in that capacity. It's rumored that Sony was avoiding importing them because the loss per unit on the console was about $80 more than the 60GB model. But you're right, the initial adopters are the ones who will buy the most expensive version. But right now, if Sony had actually announced a real price drop, that 20GB version at $400 would be very appealing to people like me. But when I walk into the store, I still see a PS3 for $500. The only difference is that this PS3 has more stuff I don't care about.

The reports I heard were from stores who didn't bother ordering more than 1 in 10 because nobody was buying them.

I agree though, I'd really like to see the 20 gig reintroduced at this point for $400. I have a feeling Sony wants to get on sturdier ground re: manufacturing costs before they try those waters again, though.

 And 3 different SKUs would obviously be fairly ridiculous for retailers and customers to sort through. Maybe once the 60 gig is phased out, since that seems to be the way things are going...

a.l.e.x59 said: Think of it this way, if Sony never released the 80 GB Playstation 3, everyone would consider the 60 GB Playstation 3 to have had a price cut. But Sony wanted to do better, and released the 80 GB Playstation 3, coincidentally at the same price the 60 GB one was at, and lowered the 60 GB one. So does that change everything? No! The 60 GB Playstation 3 got its price cut, and the 80 GB one replaced it as the most expensive. If you don't want the 80 GB one, than you don't have to get it.

 

The reason people have said it didn't get a price cut has nothing to do with the existance of the 80GB model.  It has to do with minimum cost to buy a PS3.  The argument is that people who were waiting for a price cut to buy a PS3 were waiting for it be cheaper than $500.  This ultimately leads to the question of why was the 20GB model discontinued?  The question is asked because it will be indicative of the way the 60GB sales numbers will adjust as a result of its new price point.

 Really the whole price-cut/no price-cut debate is silly since it is all symantecs. Basically it boils down to this, yes the 60GB got a price cut, no the PS3's lowest price point has not changed.

 

no the PS3's lowest price point has not changed.

==> WRONG,
the 20gb was a not full PS3 version that laked a lot of things compared to the 60GB version. It was not a complete PS3 version.
At the oppposite the PS3 60GB is only laking 20 little GB compared to the 80GB version. So it is definively the same console that u can get for 500$ , that is cheaper than the 600$ u were paying in the past = price drop
I dont even metion that the 20GB model was stopped some month ago because people were NOT buying it since it was not a COMPLETE PS3.

I add this from Bodsatva that saied it better than me :

"I think Sony's decision to make the 599 version a "limited edition" was a very smart move. Even to the casual consumer, this screams "This is optional, you don't have to buy the new 80GB limited version." Even if the 80GB model does take over eventually, for now I think even uninformed consumers will understand that the 599 version doesn't contain essential components that the 499 version does not (that's always a nagging concern -- I'm sure you've purchased items that have multiple SKUs in markets you no little about, and wondered "why is this one cheaper?"