Posted on October 9, 2007,

$399 40GB PlayStation 3 on Sale November 2nd

playstation-3.jpgThe holidays are going to be a little bit more awesome for a few more kids out there. At least, those kids who are dying to get a PlayStation 3.

The Hollywood Reporter has an inside source which says that a 40 GB version of the PlayStation 3 is going to start selling on November 2nd for $399. But don’t get too excited–it’s not going to be backward compatible with the PS2. And that’s not all you don’t get. It also has only two USB ports instead of four and it has no multimemory card port.

Obviously, there’s a huge draw for some gamers with the lower price. But there might be a cutoff with a lot of folks out there who have huge PS2 software collections.

via GameDaily.Biz

Join the Conversation   

* required field

By submitting a comment here you grant GameFront a perpetual license to reproduce your words and name/web site in attribution. Inappropriate or irrelevant comments will be removed at an admin's discretion.

15 Comments on $399 40GB PlayStation 3 on Sale November 2nd

xx-Thor-xx

On October 9, 2007 at 3:58 am

sounds like a good deal if you’re only looking forward. id rather have backwards compatibility though.

vaidis

On October 9, 2007 at 6:32 am

UOJ BANA GAUSI SUTRAUKA:d

Matt

On October 9, 2007 at 7:31 am

for people ready to go for the next generation of games its a great deal

used cisco

On October 9, 2007 at 8:17 am

Its cool they are lowering the price, but I don’t see this as a magic bullet to get the PS2 base to start moving to the current gen. There are millions of PS2 gamers out there and everyone is trying to get them, you’d think Sony brand and BC would do the trick, but now they’ve eliminated the BC from that equation. Now they only have the Sony brand working in their favor. Is that enough?

Xboxlenny

On October 9, 2007 at 9:39 am

I was finally saying this is the PS3 to get, good value and backwards compatibility, but i was wrong. From what ive read there wont be any PS2 backwards abilities on this machine.

Thats just selling yourself short. You are throwing away $400 on a machine that dont play all those great PS2 games. Sony screws up one way or the other. right now the only good machine is the 60gb PS3. This has the hardware ps2 chip and all the features u need.

As for the Dualshock im sure thats on the way as well. Personaly i would never buy a 40GB PS3 if it dont have PS2 compatiblity. its a waste of money. Screw you sony. Add the chip, dont cheap out.

Joelteon7

On October 9, 2007 at 9:52 am

Cosnidering that the majority of Sony games available are the PS2 magazine, this console really is only for those wanting a cheap Blu-ray and future games console, but considering the fact that there aren’t exactly that many must-have games for the PS3, people I’m sure would want to look back and get PS2 games, only to find out they can’t and miss out on a very big chunk of gaming.

John Boom

On October 9, 2007 at 12:06 pm

Most who have a huge amount of PS2 games still have their PS2 so what is the big deal really, although backwards compatibility would of been nice

Joelteon7

On October 9, 2007 at 12:20 pm

Because when you’re spending £300/$400, you want to know you’re getting a good amount, rather than having to rely on older and according to Sony, out-of-date tech.

Norbit

On October 9, 2007 at 12:28 pm

If you want a PS2 so much to play your PS2 games on then buy a PS2, you can get a brand new one on Amazon for $92. Oh wait, how stupid of me. You already have one so whats the problem?

Its funny/pathetic/predictable how the 360 owners are greeting a price cut by jumping on something that isn’t really important in any way and trying to make a big deal out of it. No one is really going to not buy a console because of no backwards compatibility. If they say so they are lying.

Xboxlenny

On October 9, 2007 at 12:51 pm

Backwards compatibility is important. Are you going to leave all those PS2 owners high and dry? even if they do own a old PS2, isnt the goal to eliminate the PS2 for a PS3? Im sure those PS2 owners want it all in one.

If theres a “Real” PS3 with the backwards compatibility, only a fool would waste their money when for an extra $100 get a PS2 chip inside the PS3. ALL in one, no half systems.

and Norbit, it is a big deal. if im paying that kind of cash i want the full deal. There will be many not buy one because if this, people already have said they wont. Myself included. The PS2 Market is huge and many adoptors dont have a PS2 even and would like that option in their new PS3 system. Not everyone decision is like yours. and as for the Xbox 360, i made no comment on that. this is about the PS3.

Joelteon7

On October 9, 2007 at 1:54 pm

Norbit, you’ve got to consider what Sony are saying by releasing the PS3. They’re saying, “the PS2, it’s great…but here’s the new, shinier (literally) PS3, which is much better than the PS2″. That’s what they’re saying. If you tell people something is redundant, they’ll likely get rid of that piece of hardware and replace it with better stuff, just like getting a new graphics card for your PC because it won’t just cut it anymore.

The fact is, unless they litter the box saying “NO BACKWARDS COMPATABILITY WITH PS1 AND PS2 GAMES” many people are going to be almost tricked into buying the system, when for £50 more they can get something which is inifinitely better. For a start, 20gb more harddrive, a game and backwards comptability. If Sony want to repair any damage done to customer relations, releasing a console that is going to trick people (this is hypothetical, of course) is only going to worsen it.

You’re also saying people should go out and buy a PS2 to play these games on. One of the primary features of the standard PS3 is upscaling. Now, I’ve seen that in practice and damn, it looks great…why get rid of a cool feature like that? It just doesn’t make any practical sense. Sony might as well keep on losing money with each unit and keep customers for future games, accessories and the PS4, then disgruntle them.

As for the 360 comments…seriously, what’s up there? You’re criticizing people for having an opinion. If I didn’t have my 360 and just had my Wii, I’d have exactly the same opinion. If I had none, I’d still think the same. Fact is, for a feature that Sony has be proud to say they have, they’ve contradicted themselves big time and quite honestly, I think this model sucks. Pure and simple. Sucky contentm easily outclassed by the other gen consoles.

Norbit

On October 11, 2007 at 7:49 am

I hope you lot remember these idiotic statements next year.

Backwards compatibility isn’t important and Sony haven’t damaged customer relations at all. If they have then why is the 7 year old PS2 still outselling the 360 worldwide every month? They have annoyed a load of 360 owners but the vast majority of the market are ordinary people who would never even dream of going on a site like this and couldn’t care less about your (or my) rantings. There is only a tiny minority of hardcore gamers, the rest of them aren’t particularly concerned about which console has which exclusives because they are the people who buy all the crappy generic film tie ins and the multiplatform EA stuff. The way they choose a console is the same way they would buy a TV or HiFi. They care about brand names, reliability, features and price.

Sony are a far bigger brand name in gaming, they are far more reliable, the PS3 has more features (HD drive & WiFi are more important than backwards compatibilty) and there isn’t much in it between the 360 and PS3 in the price category unless online gaming is important to them in which case the PS3 is obviously cheaper.

Heru-Ur

On October 11, 2007 at 8:08 am

Norbit said:

“Sony are a far bigger brand name in gaming, they are far more reliable, the PS3 has more features (HD drive & WiFi are more important than backwards compatibilty) and there isn’t much in it between the 360 and PS3 in the price category unless online gaming is important to them in which case the PS3 is obviously cheaper.”

——–

While i agree that Sony is a bigger name, and the PS3 is probably more reliable the rest of that paragraph is purely your own opinion stated as if it was fact. Different strokes for different folks, man. While a HD and WiFi may be more important for you, there is likely a large amount of people that could care less about either one and would rather be able to play they’re PS2 and PS3 games on one system, rather than having yet another console adding to the jumbled mess of a home theater. :mrgreen:

Xboxlenny

On October 11, 2007 at 9:28 am

Gotta love them PS2 selling figures. it dont mean a thing because if a persons going to buy an Xbox 360 they dont care how many PS2s are sold.

You can have all the features in the world. even a swiss army knife on the side, but its a “GAMING” system, what good is all those features without good games? i sure wont buy a PS3 or any console if it dont have good games. and the mass collection of great PS2 games is importatnt. Upscaling of games is important. Having all this in one system is important. PS one games are important. Sony cheaped out as usual.

everyones oppinion is different, bashing the Xbox 360 or giving sales figures dont matter here, the topic is the PS3. As for this feature its missing, i feel it is only getting half a system, theres too many great PS2 games to miss out on. PS2 is legendary. and PS3 dont hold a candle to that yet in great games.

Norbit

On October 11, 2007 at 12:22 pm

I love this comment:

“Sony cheaped out as usual.”

Its funny how the ‘cheap’ Sonys lowest spec console still has a hard drive, built in WiFi, a HD drive, free online game-play and due to extensive testing and high quality control it has a failure rate of less than .02%.

Really cheap :lol:

You keep attacking it for having no games but as I keep pointing out it has an amazing line up for next year. There is a very bright light at the end of this tunnel yet for some reason you seem intent on ignoring it. If you only want to buy a console to play right now then the 360 is the better choice. Given however that there isn’t a single game on the horizon for that console that looks anywhere near the quality of whats due for the PS3 I would say the PS3 is definitely the best choice if you intend on playing games next year and onwards.

Related to that Sony have just announced they are going to be releasing a Metal Gear Solid 4 pack including the console, game & Dual Shock 3 before Easter.

As I said earlier however the majority of people who buy consoles in the long run dont care about exclusives or fan boy arguments. They care about Price, brand names, reliability and features. They are interested in buying the best piece of home electronics and approach the purchase the same as they would buy a Toaster.

T3 just had their awards for best gadgets of 2007. The 360 won best gaming console for 2007 (rightly so…for now :mrgreen: ) however the PS3 won the award for overall best gadget of the year. It also won an EISA award for best European Media Center last month which is a huge honor to get. This of course means the PS3 is without question the best piece of home electronics between it and the 360 and as such is obviously going to be the #1 choice for the casual buyer once they start upgrading in the coming years.

Links:

EISA: http://www.eisa-awards.eu/2007/node/738
T3: http://competition.futurenet.com/t3awards/?result=21
MGS4 Bundle: http://www.psxextreme.com/ps3-news/1980.html