What the hell is this?
The announcement at GamesCom of a price drop on the PlayStation 3 was well timed and wonderful news for the gaming community as a whole. People had expected a price drop as early as march of this year, and were a little baffled when that didn't come to pass, but what was even stranger was the leaked shots of a supposedly thinner, redesigned system. Surely, right when Sony had made their console cheap enough to be profitable they weren't going to sacrifice that by fundamentally changing their design... right? Well, I thought so.
At first, I didn't believe any of it. It seemed like it was too soon, and without any merit, to believe that they were already making a smaller version of the PS3, and the leaked shots all looked like cheap Chinese knockoffs anyways. There was no way this was going to be real. After about six months of insider reports and leaks, I began to accept that there was, in fact, a redesign of the Playstation 3, but there was no way all those shots we had seen could be the final product. It's so... unstylish, and what is with that font. That simply isn't Sony's MO. Well, come GamesCom in mid-august and here is Sony, announcing exactly what all the leaks and rumors had said they were making. I was in shock. I believed it, I just couldn't understand it.
As I stated above, the price drop is great, that is exactly what the PS3 needed, but who asked for this redesign? The old PS3 was barely bigger than the Xbox 360, and while it was heavy and used a lot of electricity, there was no reason to redesign the box to fix those small issues. I just don't understand why they felt like this was the right move to make at this juncture. The PS2 redesign made the system tiny and way more attractive than the aging old system, I traded up in a heartbeat for that, partly because I was fascinated by just how small they had made it. The PS3 'slim,' as the press has dubbed it, is in some ways bigger than the original. it is now a square shape instead of a rectangle because they made it longer from front to back. To me, that says that it is premature to be trying to redesign it.
The size of the system isn't my main issue though, a smaller system is probably better in the long run, but what isn't better is the look of this new system. The matte finish changes what was a shiny attractive console into some old beater from the 1970s that your uncle gave you for a first car that you pretended to be excited about. Seriously, it looks like a big black slab of ugly. There is way too much area for so little actual stuff. Furthermore, what is going on with that new logo? I will be the first to tell you that the spider-man font of yesterconsole was lame from day one, but how did they manage to mess up the second time even worse with only three figures to display? It doesn't look like a sleek electronic device, it looks like a big stone that someone carved his initials into in comic sans. Finally, they changed the futuristic touch sensitive buttons into old school buttons, just like they had on the original Playstation. Did I fall into some sort of time warp here? It is as if, one day, they just tried to replace Star Trek with Buck Rogers and pretend that it was this great improvement. Instead of Data, the android who was a little too human, you have Twiki, a midget in a dumb costume who has to say 'bidi bidi bidi' before he talks just to remind you that he's an idiot.
This is not ugly
Getting rid of the multimedia ports doesn't bother me; I don't think people have that much urgency to put their photos onto their PS3 anyways, but if you're going to do cost adding measures to increase sales how about adding back the USB ports you took away or the built-in PS2 compatibility? Even if people don't use those things, they see them as value, and the best thing the PS3 has going for it is it's value for the dollar. If you're that desperate to start losing money on the consoles again, why not listen to what your consumer base has been asking for?
I know I'll get used to the new PS3 design, the same way I got used to there being a console called the 'Wii,' but that doesn't mean I have to like it. They could have very easily made it a smaller version of what it looked like before, but someone in R&D seemed to think that people were so concerned about dust that they would rather have an ugly console than have to wipe it occasionally, and whoever chose the new font just needs to be fired; normal people don't screw up that badly. I hate to sound like a reactionary, but I know what looks good, and this isn't it.
That said, I fully intend to purchase one when I get the funds together.
Comments
Its not ugly.
I find it humorous that this article is focusing on the look of the console so much. So many people were craving a price drop with the system but never really though about what they might lose. Sony is in business to make money. By eliminating the old shiny finish as well as the touch sensitive buttons helped Sony reduce the cost of the system. What should be focused on is how the system is still the same power house it was now totting a smaller more efficient processor. Sony has eliminated extra frills to make the system more obtainable to the masses. If the look of the old system is so appealing those who have not bought a PS3 can still purchase the original 80Gb system for the same price as the PS3 slim $299.
You can't have your cake and eat it... cheaper and more storage at a lower price comes with some drawbacks..
It doesnt need to look good, it must just work really good. Unless you want to have a relationship with your PS3.. i am sure there are some sicko's who do...
I agree that the Classic PS3 is prettier. I also agree with the stupidity of reducing the number of USB ports (a $2 savings for Sony) - which is matched only by Microsoft no longer bundling an HDMI wire with their cheaper Elite (a $1 savings for MS).
But... to b__ch and moan about PS3 being ugly for half a dozen paragraphs? Come on? How many time to you actually 'look' at your console? Maybe there's a reason for these things being made black. What do you thin?
If I were Sony, I'd make it intentionally ugly. Show the early adopters who're really important to the company. No BC, no pressure sensitive buttons, no optional OS install, no sir. That's what you get, that's your 'reasonably priced' PS3. Funny thing is though, doesn't matter what this guy thinks, it's held 1st on Amazon.com Video Games for the past 11 days.
who needs bc? ps2 games on a big hd tv look as bad as a wiis (sorry) and how many of us normal people give a second thought about linux? someone will hack the slim and post on youtube so don't worry. price is important more usb would have been handy but not essential, i never used more than two on the old model. i get my slim next week(in uk) and i think it looks way better than any iteration of the ps2 which was a dog of a thing.
I don't agree with you mate. New design is atractive for older players, who dosen't like to keep toy looking consol in a living room. I am 34 and new style is perfect for me.
Ugly? Give me a break. The new PS3 "Slim"s are not ugly. I happen to like it's new minimalistic design. Beauty is truly in the eye of the beholder. It's funny how no one now remembers how much the old PS3 design was laughed at and ridiculed when it was first released. There was no end to all the George Foreman Grill jokes. Now the old "fat" PS3s are suddenly ooooh so sexy. Yeah, right. Fanboys are so fickle.
"The PS3 'slim,' as the press has dubbed it, is in some ways bigger than the original. it is now a square shape instead of a rectangle because they made it longer from front to back."
Bigger???
it is now a square shape because they made it longer from front to back???
man... read something, learn something and then talk about something.
at least see some pictures side by side...
Its NOT bigger, NOT taller neither.
Its square because they made it SHORTER from side to side.
If they would made it longer from front to back, to make the square shape, it would ended up with a huge size, much larger than the original version... you need glasses, or get burned by an optical illusion
I'm tired of having a sandwich toaster under my HDTV, I want something that actually looks like a PlayStation. Sadly I cant do that, because Sony have taken out one of the things they revolutionised (Well, at leat while Ken Kutaragi was in charge). BACKWARDS COMPATIBILITY. Its not how often people use it, its the sheer irony of doing it and pretending everythings alright.
Do people buy a Blu-ray player to watch DVDs? No. Can they play DVDs? Yes..
I'm not encouraging anyone to buy it until its back, not for playing PS2 games, but the risk of Sony spoonfeeding you more bullshit, and TELLING you what you want. Why don't Sony put up a poll on the PlayStation website and ask who would like to have it back? Oh of course, because they'll have to eat their series of non logical explanations.
Luisgoru - it went from 10.79" to 11.42" from front to back.
The 'new font' is just the old PS2 font, but a little more rounded.
Personally, I don't think the Slim looks bad at all, it still looks sleek. The only think I dislike is that the 'PS' symbol on the front of the console doesn't turn like it used to...
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!