maybe i'm crazy but didn't they debut with a 40gb model? so it's discontinued, then stripped down and rereleased? is there a strategy here I'm missing?

$399 is still $399 too much. Even if I got one for free I'd probably sell it on eBay and get more Xbox 360 and Wii games with it.

[Putting on flame retardant helmet.]

Your comments already prove you're and idiot, this further justifies this,

Care to explain why? Just because I have a different opinion doesn't make me an idiot. Or did I 'hit a raw nerve'?

Most people think youre an idiot.

No, just you and your many login IDs. Like I said before, just because I don't care for your beloved PS3 doesn't mean I'm an idiot. I like games over hardware. I don't see the point in spending $400 on a system when I can get basically the same games on the Xbox 360 with better online and I also get achievements. And I could use that $400 towards 360 games and Wii games. That's not being an idiot. That's knowing how to manage my money. The PS3 would be collecting dust on my shelf.

Hey Joey, fernz, Steve,

I see you are multiposting the same desperate garbage once again. Glad to see you back, I need someone to belittle so I can feel like a big man.

Plus, you arent too bright so it's really easy.

How's Transformers on BD? Oh that's right, you wont be able to get it in HD for another 16 months because you are too cheap and stupid to buy an HD-DVD player.

Tomorrow is movie night, I'll be watching it in 1080p at 103", meanwhile you'll be at 42" with the regular 480p DVD.

Have fun with your "yet to be updated to 1.1 spec" PS3 / BD.

Sorry, I almost forgot, you and the rest of the girls are attacking every forum with "logic and zeal" and are banning this movie completely.

You suck a fat bag of sh!t, fanboy.

p.s. 300 = Your wieght and my IQ

Transformers is a kids movie.

Sorry, if that's the best HD DVD can offer, I'm glad I went with the movie industry friendly Blu-ray format.

Sure it is. Only because it's on HD-DVD.

So I guess that Spiderman is also and all the other movies made by studios like disney. You did get one thing right that blo-ray is movie indstry friendl and not customer friendly the way it sould be, moron.

"...I see you are multiposting the same desperate garbage once again"

My bad, I thought we were having a discussion on the topic of this article...

But look who I'm talking to... the Beta"News" Fanboys. Of course because this is good news for the PS3, they attack BRD and the less than 1% failure rate.

No because it's Michael Bay. Wow his movies are bad!

Paramount have also annouced, the reason why the audio on transformers sucks so badly, is because HD DVD does not have the room... Oh dear...

http://hddvd.highdefdige.../1110/transformers.html

"When audio specs for 'Transformers' were announced, there was a collective sigh of disappointment from early adopters when we learned that there would be no high-res audio tracks included on this disc. Given that this is such a flagship title for the studio, the decision was quite the head-scratcher.

Indeed, I had the opportunity to attend a special 'Transformers' media event with Paramount late last week, and the question was asked almost immediately -- why no Dolby TrueHD or uncompressed PCM? The studio's answer was that due to space limitations on the disc, the decision was made to limit the audio to Dolby Digital-Plus 5.1 Surround only (here at 1.5mbps). Unfortunately, this confirms the long-held theory that the 30Gb capacity of an HD-30 dual-layer HD DVD disc has forced studios to choose between offering a robust supplements package (as they've done here) and the very best in audio quality."

You say that here, but you were crying like a little girl over at blu-ray.com.

You were all exited to hear Michael Bay said, no "Blu-Ray, no Transformers 2", you and the rest of the f**s were jumping up and down.

Then, when Paramount told BD to go **** themselves, it was "Transformers sucks and so does anything Michael Bay / Paramount"

You are such a little whiner and still posting under all 3 of your usernames, you have problems.

Would you like me to go back and dog up your crap from blu-ray.com, Dave?

Actually I would...

Please find stuff that says "Fernz33"... Oh wait you can't.

I can make up stuff too. Like the time you admitted that you don't have a system yet and you are now planning to pick up a PS3 for $399... But you wrote that under a different username.

So go for it. Hell, if you find something under Fernz33 that has said I liked Michael Bay's work... I'll PayPal you $100.

"Sony has already launched the 40GB PS3 in Europe and Japan, which will replace the phased out 60GB model."

Keeping the price issue aside, since when is downgrading 60gb to 40gb a good thing! Were costumers complaining about too much hard drive space on the PS3???

It's a good thing when the price drops to $399 and you can swap out the HDD for a 120 GB for less then the difference... Not to mention the option to get the 40 gb if it suits your needs... AND, by the looks of the reported sales spikes for the units, there was no complaints about the small drive either.

you can swap out the HDD for cheap and it's not considered "hacking" the console like it was for original and current xbox. not only does sony support installing new HDDs but also new operating systems.

my last console is a PS2 and im not a fanboi of either camp, but this looks like a bargain if youre looking to add a PS3 to complement your 360 OR getting into next gen consoles.

This is nonsense. The 40GB is not replacing the 60GB. It's called stepped releases, something Ed Oswald does not understand, which is why he posts his newbie nonsense.

When the 60GB runs low, there will be something to replace that product in the market (120GB/160GB I reckon).

To the untrained newbie, it looks like the 40GB will be the only unit on the market. But these same untrained newbies also predicted in the US, that when the 60GB units were sold, only the 80GB $599 model would remain. Those same clueless newbies (Ed Oswald included) look pretty foolish, if (when) the US 40GB unit arrives.

But then again Microsoft's model allowed them to put movies (including hd movies) and tv shows on Xbox Live. The movie industry wouldn't allowed them to do it without any kind of DRM and the way the 360 is setup, you can't just connect the HDD to your computer and get the movies and shows.

you like calling ppl clueless, yes you would know, like that time you posted as steve and responded later as benjamin

wb dave, it just wasn't the same without your silly posts

"When the 60GB runs low, there will be something to replace that product in the market (120GB/160GB I reckon).
"

So more hard drive space and still no good games?

You obviously have NO idea how DRM works...

Plenty of good games idiot.

But not as much as the Xbox 360.

Care to explain yourself? Or are you going to look like the 'idiot' and just tell me I don't know how something works.

We've already established that everyone here knows you post under at least 15 different names, your real name is Dave Peterson.

I'll post all your info including your IP and home phone / adress, jagoff.

Which has been out a year longer. Idiot.

Because DRM has no relation to being about to take HDD out of PS3/360 and putting into a PC.

Even with this ability, DRM stays intact.

It's no different to moving a DRM file between computers, swaping Harddrive works the same way.

"Which has been out a year longer. Idiot."

Yeah, so what's your point? So your admitting that the 360 has more games which is exactly what my point is. Why get a PS3 when the 360 has more games? Thanks for helping me prove my point.

I like how your running out of idea's so you just call me an idiot.

DRM is supposed to restrict you from making copies of your original purchase. The PS3's model makes it easier to just plug the HDD into your computer and rid of the DRM (which is possible). While the Xbox 360's HD is a lot harder to just connect it to your computer. Which makes it a lot harder to rid the DRM and the movie industries are happier.

"It's no different to moving a DRM file between computers, swaping Harddrive works the same way."

Not with the Xbox 360 hard drive, which is my point.

this means the elite should be $400 by the end of the year. i love the comp. this is great for the consumer.

Microsoft have already said no price drops on 360, they will be adding value (games or play and chage kits).

Either way, it's hardly competition. Even the basic cut down PS3 is better specification that the 360 elite. (aside of course from the obvious HDD, which is customer upgradable in the PS3, but not in the 36).

"Even the basic cut down PS3 is better specification that the 360 elite."

Who cares? The 360 has more and better games. Not to mention it has better online for the games too.

"Microsoft have already said no price drops on 360"

Your point?

Sony has stated there were no plans whatsoever to release the 40GB model in the U.S., and look what's already on the horizon.

Both companies in the past have said things that simply were not true, especially when dealing with rumored price cuts. Sony is just better at lying to the public, and assuming we're all completely incapable of logical reasoning. If they give an answer, assume the opposite. If they announce a release date, add 6 months to 1 year. Same sh*t, different day.

"Even the basic cut down PS3 is better specification that the 360 elite."

Now you're just being ridiculous. Care to elaborate? In what way are the specifications better? This should be amusing...

Blu-ray as standard.
More powerful CPU
More powerful GPU
Wifi
No need to buy "play and charge kit"
User replaceable Harddrive
HDMI 1.3 as standard
7.1 Audio
No need to send it back for repair over other month
You can hear yourself think whilst it on.

I can show you multiple posts by developers for both platforms that will tell you the 360 is better hands down.

Here's a quote and a link

"Being a video game developer (I develop for both, Playstation 3 and XBOX 360) people ask me almost daily which platform I think is better. These are my personal feelings, in no way does this reflect my employer.

Short answer: XBOX 360.

Long answer: Price, performance, visual quality, game selection and online support. I think the XBOX 360 wins in every category.

Price: This is obvious; the XBOX 360 core is only $299. The PS3 is around $499 for the 20GB version. It comes with a hard drive, but you don’t need a hard drive to enjoy a lot of great games on the 360 so I think it’s fair to compare both core systems.

Performance: On paper, the PS3 is more powerful. In reality, it’s quite inferior to the 360. Without getting into too many details, the three general-purpose CPU’s the xbox360 has are currently FAR easier to take advantage of than the SPU’s on the PS3. I suspect a few years down the road some high budget, first party PS3 exclusive titles will come out that really take advantage of the SPU’s and do things the XBOX 360 can’t, but I don’t think the console is worth buying based on this speculation (for some it will be though, we'll have to wait and see how these games turn out)."

http://www.hardcoreware....eviews/review-348-1.htm

Steve tends to ignore these pesky details.

Developers are lazy. They want an easy life.

The games that will win this generation, are those that truely push the platform.

Halo 3 sucks, because it lazy. Gears is great becuase it was done by people that care.

I can post many other developer comments, stating that the PS3 is the only true console for this generation, and how the 8 core CPU allows things to be done, previously thought unimaginable.

Your quoted developer comments are dated anyway, they refer to the 20GB model. There will be a $399 40GB model this holiday season.

"Developers are lazy. They want an easy life."

That's why developers will develop on the Xbox 360 first [which is easier] then port to the PS3 and most likely won't take advantage of any of the PS3 features.

"The games that will win this generation, are those that truely push the platform."

No sorry, graphics don't make a game (or whatever pushing the platform is supposed to mean); game play and how fun the game is is what will win this generation. Plus that's not the same story you had when it was the PS2 vs. Xbox1 days.

"Halo 3 sucks,"

Only because it's on Xbox.

"I can post many other developer comments, stating that the PS3 is the only true console for this generation"

What, from game developers made by Sony?

"and how the 8 core CPU allows things to be done, previously thought unimaginable."

That's funny!

"Your quoted developer comments are dated anyway, they refer to the 20GB model."

So what? All PS3 hardware is basically the same (except for a few minor things like the emotion engine ect.). Developing a PS3 game is going to be the same regardless of how much HDD space you have.

"Blu-ray as standard.
More powerful CPU
More powerful GPU
Wifi
User replaceable Harddrive
HDMI 1.3 as standard"

Who cares? That doesn't mean Bioshock is a bad game. Or the fact that the 360 has more and better games out now than the PS3.

"More powerful GPU"

That's debatable.

"No need to buy "play and charge kit""

You keep saying that, but you don't need to for the 360 either. When you buy either an Xbox 360 or Wireless controller it comes with one already. The only reason there selling them is if you loose the one you already have. That's also like saying you have to buy USB cables for the PS3.

"The games that will win this generation, are those that truely push the platform."

LMAO

http://ps3.ign.com/objects/761/761161.html
Games like these definitely push the platform, straight through the ground.

And no games to play. Last time I checked it was a game machine. Go figure.

Nooo, they develop for the 360 first because of the limitations they face with that system (Disc Storage, no standard HDD), then they port to the PS3 and get lazy and cheap to take advantage of the PS3's capabilities.

LMAO @ the spin doctor. Even developers say the PS3 sucks and the 360 is superior.

Face it Dave, you lost.

Care to backup your statements?

Ubisoft's having problems now with the lack of space on DVD's for Assassin's Creed.

dood, it's curing cancer. how is that not fun?

>> ...and how the 8 core CPU allows things to be done, previously thought unimaginable.

like encouraging sony fanboys to masturbate over every new revision? come on guy. no one is saying that but sony. i have yet to see a single game that wowed me on ps3. for all your b****ing about the titles on other consoles that suck, there's not a thing to show for the ps3 that makes it worth getting other than azian pride or microsoft kicking your dog.

It's still easier to develop for the 360. If they wanted they could just simply put it on two DVD's. The PS3 is harder to actually develop for regardless of memory space.

400 bux is more my price range...
dont need PS2 games since i havent touched my ps2 in 3 or 4 years...

probably wont get one but it's nice to know i could get blueray and some high quality games with wireless devices/bluetooth out of the box for $400.

i'm a large PC gamer and Wii and PS3 are the only consoles that really appeal to my high end needs, but $600 for a console, whether Sony or MS, was waaaaay out of my budget. 400 is still high but much more reasonable.

i wish they sold one without a HDD for cheaper, i'd slap a new 7200rpm drive in it and only spend maybe $50 over the cost of a PS3 w/ 40GB.

then again, why bother when i can hook it up to my PC via bluetooth and have access to 1+ TB of media...

"but it's nice to know i could get blueray and some high quality games"

Well, one out of two ain't bad. Still waiting for the 'high quality games'. I'm betting most people would just settle for halfway decent games at this point.

I better go get my second job to be able to afford this junk. [sarcasm off]

= Desperation.

I don't mind seeing a lower priced model with fewer bells and whistles. I still have my PS2 up and running, so the loss of BC was never that big of a deal to me (regardless of Sony's chest thumping and digs at MS when the PS3 first launched).

ROFL, so let me get this straight pay 40 Gb for no compatibility and no memory card port?

I thought the costs of the ps3 were going down, this seems to state the opposite.

People will pay for higher priced devices provided the games are there, and as been shown Sony is not yet delivering on the games, you can make a game life-like and have the characters appear to be real but if the control and the actual flow of the game is terrible it doesn't matter how low you make the device to play it on.

I also believe once Sony consoles have actually been used for games and movies, it will have the same problems every other playstation product has had with the use of cheap lasers.

The funny thing even though the xbox has its issues people still continue to buy it, because it has something very important for a GAME machine and that is GAMES. :)

That's what I've been saying for a while. For those claiming ridiculously low failure rates so far, I believe they're missing the larger picture. It's rather difficult to accurately gauge the PS3's reliability when the consoles rarely get used.

haha MS 360 breaks soo much becasue people play the crap out of it.. :D ps3 does not, becasue no one uses it? :) hehe

"no compatibility and no memory card port"

Well, you know, one is followed by the other.

How about some facts to back these claims up. You guys are always jumping on people for making assumptions and random accusations without providing links or sources... Now it’s your turn.

How easy you people forget about the early days of the 360 when overheating and failures were reported within days of launch without any games being available to play on it.

You can't just say that the machine WILL break MORE when used more. Of course it will but it’s like saying that if the 360 sells 1 million more units, the # of faulty machines will rise. Of course it will there are more machines out there being used.

There are people who are using the PS3 non-stop but hardly any reports of failure have surfaced. And what about Fold@Home. This works the machine almost as hard as any game and is on for days at a time... yet no reports of failure due to heavy usage.

Because every playstation (even the last revision of the ps2) still has issues with cheap hardware, after long-term use on any ps2 you run into the dreaded disk read errors.

Sony never fixed it on the ps2 what makes you think its fixed on the ps3, only time will tell.

For all MS fumbles on the xbox360 at least they admitted there was a problem, Sony still never owned up to it.

I can't speak for everyone but my PS2 works just, oh who am I kidding. It has problems reading just about all of my discs now. They aren't scratched up either, it won't even read new ones. I think the PS One models have better drives in them though, or so I've heard.

Please. Do you REALLY believe that 5.5 million PS3's are just sitting there idle?

That's pure nonsense, and frankly desperate talk from an Xbox. Now go play in your Dirtbox360 with it's REAL reliability issues, rather than resorting to having to invent PS3 ones..

less than 1% of PS2 faulty. Sure that's in the same league as the Dirtbox360's 30-40% failure rate...

You are talking about different technologies.

The PS2 and PS3 use different components (blu) so why even compare them.

So again I ask, where are these reports of faulty PS3's.... Ohh yea, there isnt any (or 1%).

pulling #'s out of thin air again?

15 revisions later and the drives still fail, its more then 1%

Its still Sony and the ps3 did use some parts from the ps2.

The sony ps1 was different hardware as well and the ps2 has problems as well, its a pattern...but as I stated there is no proof at this time only time will tell. Its only mere speculation at this time.

Funny that you make "mere speculation", and not "pull things out of the air".

Oh, and I think he was referring to the PS3.

How is it funny? I stated it in the first conversation on this topic, here's a refresh

"Sony never fixed it on the ps2 what makes you think its fixed on the ps3, only time will tell.

For all MS fumbles on the xbox360 at least they admitted there was a problem, Sony still never owned up to it.

I have had my ps2 sense 2001 and hasn't skipped a beat. from that time i always played it constantly and no issues. the ps2 is still the best with a HDD in the baby there are no limits to what you can do with it. seriously i don't know what you no lifers do to those things. as for the PS3 i will be getting one but not from this price drop. wish they would just sell it with no HDD sense people can install one themselves. as for the 360 systems dying from constant playing that is BS all consoles that are failing are mostly the red ring of death right out of the box. and online play, i rather not pay 50 bucks a month after paying almost 500 buck for a console

Easy Dave, I mean Joey Deacon. What a lame a** username, than again you've been doing this for a year.

"i rather not pay 50 bucks a month"

It's $50 a year, not a month. So it's not that much. You get what you pay for though. It's a hell of a lot better than Sony's online. Individual game makers could choose to charge a monthly fee for online services. And that would be per game, which could add up (like 3 games at $9.99 a month = $30 a month. Or even one game at $9.99 for a year which is about $120 a year, more than double of Xbox Lives online which includes all Xbox 360 games.

When you go to play online there will almost always be someone their to play with. I have a lot of games and Live Arcade games and I haven't had a time yet not being able to play with someone. Plus everyone that has Xbox Live has a headset so you can actually talk to people while playing games, which is pretty cool too. I was playing MotoGP and everyone their was talking I think in German (or Japaneese... I can't remember now, there both basically the same anyway).

Your right they are doing the only thing that can and this folding. Oh boy.

Past behavior is an indicator of future behavior in this situation equals future failures.

"...better than Sony's online. Individual game makers could choose to charge a monthly fee for online services..."

What are you talking about... I've never paid for online play on the PS3... And I've never had trouble finding someone to play with online.

"I've never paid for online play on the PS3..."

Please read carefully (from my quote):

"Individual game makers ****could**** choose to charge a monthly fee for online services..."

Note the word 'could' in that sentence. Meaning game developers 'could' charge a monthly fee if they wanted to. I never said that they are now.

"And I've never had trouble finding someone to play with online."

Sure, I can't argue your own experiences. But the fact is, more people are on Xbox Live than they are on the PlayStation Network. Chances are your going to find more people on Xbox Live for multi-player games.

OK. Find me 1... just 1 article where a game maker has even considered charging a monthly service.

Seriously that cannot be your argument... You can do better than that.

BREAKING NEWS!!!!
The xobx and its accessories COULD catch on fire and kill babies.... ohh wait... that may have actually happened (Please note the MAY in this sentence).

Spin, spin, spin! You need to learn how to read. Go back and ready my comment again. I said game developers 'could' charge a monthly fee. Christ man!

Wow you are really sticking by your 'COULD' argument.

BREAKING NEWS
bobthegoat2001 COULD be a Pedophile...

Could it be true... sure it 'could', but could as an argument is worthless... just like your comment.

"Wow you are really sticking by your 'COULD' argument."

Yes, I know. That's my point. But someone keeps trying to spin it and change the subject. 'Could' you please stay on my point? I know it's tough when you don't have a good argument.

"...Go back and 'ready' my comment again"... Ready? Good job Borat!

Spin nothing. I'm still on point. We've been discussing how game makers 'could' charge for online play. We are talking about how you could have had a good argument if you had not of used could in your argument. Please try to keep your ADHD under control.

Wait a minute... Maybe someone can explain it to us better... But are games online being run off of the game makers servers, therefore having the option to charge? Or do they just create the game with online capabilities and it is MS & Sony that run the games online using their own servers? If it is Sony & MS, then that 'could' make your argument even more worthless.

"Ready?"

Your getting better!

"We are talking about how you could have had a good argument if you had not of used could in your argument."

That's my point though is that game developers can charge a fee if they wanted to, hence the word 'could' charge a fee [if they wanted to]. Understand now?

Here's a couple links to backup my statements:

"Individual game makers can choose to charge for online services."
- http://www.winsupersite....ase/xbox360_ps3_wii.asp

"however, developers are permitted to charge a subscription fee"

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_3

"But are games online being run off of the game makers servers, therefore having the option to charge?"

For the PS3, yes. For Xbox Live, no. Microsoft is handling the servers for any game on the Xbox 360. That's why you pay Microsoft $50 a year and that why it includes all the games.