Meet The 40GB ZetaSystem

Submitted by Paul Munn on October 6, 2007 – 8:40 am18 Comments

ps3 with cash

Sony has announced the new 40GB PS3 model for the UK, Europe and Australia so far, and it takes the cake as the worst PS3 ever and worst marketing strategy for Sony’s console yet, despite being the cheapest (relatively speaking, that is, since it goes from 599 Euros to 399 Euros).

Why is the new model so bad? Just one reason: It can’t play PlayStation 2 games. No, I’m not overstating issues with software backwards compatibility, the blasted thing by design will not play a single PlayStation 2 game. Joystiq gave Sony their first ever Joystiq WTF Award as a result. Here’s why it’s one of the worst ideas I’ve ever seen come from a console manufacturer.

Before I slap around this marketing and engineering effort, let me give the basic rundown on the European release of the system and its implications for us.

It is our destiny
With the region’s 60GB software-only backwards-compatible model slated to leave British stores as a discontinued model at a slightly lower price than it was at, it looks like this new PS3 with just PS1 compatibility will become the standard Sony offering there, too, at least. And if the 80GB model we now, um, enjoy in the US is any indication, the 40GB model is destined to be the standard offering here in the US as well. If the rumors of it showing up in BestBuy’s database are true, our destiny may arrive in a matter of days.

This also tells us a few things about Sony’s firmware roadmap. Namely that we won’t be seeing any new features in the backwards compatibility modes of the console — pie-in-the-sky things I have wanted like staying hooked up to the PSN for voice chat and text messaging while playing a PS2 or PS1 game — and that we can expect all efforts at improving software backwards compatibility to stop immediately.

Failure to launch
So why is this the worst idea to ever come from Sony? Because it basically brings the PlayStation 3 back to its absolute zero starting point with its biggest unserved fan base — the PS2 owners who have held out because of price. By turning the PS3 into a PS3-only gaming machine, they have re-launched the PS3 with almost no draw for those people. It’s no longer an “upgrade” or a “replacement” for the PS2, giving them pride in their brand loyalty, it’s a brand new machine that stands alone and doesn’t replace anything at all. Heck, it probably won’t even replace their DVD player. It might as well have ATARI written on it instead of Sony PlayStation. Maybe we can call it the 40GB ZetaSystem?

That bears restating, so here goes: It makes the PS3 into just a separate, incompatible console in the eyes of their fan base who has held out to see the price fall. Just like the Xbox 360 and just like the Wii for PS2 owners, the PS3 is a new box that will sit next to their existing box. The Wii replaces the GameCube with full backwards compatibility. The 360 replaces the Xbox with a wide variety of popular titles backwards compatible. With relatively few exclusives and a weaker online service, the PS3 may not exactly jump off the shelves at the same price as the already-launched 360.

That’s why I don’t think this new PS3 is going to make a huge difference for Sony. A full slate of great games will make a difference, and the system is getting there, but not fast enough to justify cutting out PS2 compatibility. As a PS3 owner who wants more great games and features for the system I hope I’m wrong, but from the point of view of someone outside looking in, I don’t think so.

http://www.routermall.com used cisco

I have to agree with you. I remember when they announced the PS2, with full backward compatibility with PS1, I was like, “Wow!”, that is so cool, we never had this before! I remember thinking the dreamcast and gamecube are so totally F^$%ed because of this one single feature. I was proud of Sony for taking care of their userbase like that, but now, I’m just as disappointed for them abandoning them.
I’m not sure what this means in regard to sales because things are really convoluted but I can’t imaging its going to be terribly helpful. Being someone who puts a high priority on BC, this certainly won’t increase the rate as which I buy a PS3. Oh well, if the strategy is to lower manufacturing costs, then thats the way it goes. Maybe they shouldn’t have designed a box that was so expensive to build in the first place? The more features they cut, the more SKUs they throw at the wall, hoping one will stick, the more I realize how wrong they were with their original vision. I laughed at the “Zetastation” but I think it would be more accurate to rename it the blu-RAYSTATION.
Joe (Aeropause)

So, instead of adding the EE back, or even just shrinking the hard drive, they decided to kill compatibility. This was one of the biggest trump cards they had on Microsoft and they decided to shoot their third foot with this move.

Can Sony be that stupid. I mean, are they even trying to sell consoles at this point? How could this of even left the boardroom? Imaging that meeting – “Kaz, lets make the console a bit cheaper, with a smaller hard drive, and no backwards compatibility.” Kaz responds, “BRILLIANT! Now lets play RIIIIIIIIIIIIDDDGGGEEEEE RACER!”
(sorry, I could not help myself).

Sony, this is as bad as the whole Core system from Microsoft. You just made their backwards compatibility effort look like a great deal, and I did not think that could happen in any way.
http://www.whoisbill.com Bill

I have to agree that it is dumb that Sony would not include BC, I would love to hear someone from the UK response to this, perhaps Sony feels that they don’t worry about BC as much as say japan or the US. However, since it cost no money to add software emulation, then I still don’t see the point of this

The good news coming from this, is that they dropped the price of the 60gb to $349GBP, and the 60 gig includes 2 games, 2 controllers and BC, so if your in the UK you might as well put forth the extra money and get the 60gb
http://www.aeropause.com Stephen

It makes more sense for them to sell a new model of PS2 that plays Blu-Ray movies than a PS3 that doesn’t run PS2 games.
http://www.routermall.com used cisco

@stephen,

Thats an interesting way to look at it. You’re probably right. Which brings me to my next thought.
It’s clear that Sony’s objective with the PS3 is less game focused than the PS2 was. To eliminate some 1500 or so titles from the potential library shows a serious lack of respect for the overall gaming potential of the device. Thats one thing I’ve loved about the Wii, is that I still see the gamecube library as totally relevant to me. I go out and pick up GC games I missed without a second thought. It has turned a quasi-drought of wii-games into a total non-issue. Without PS2 games on the PS3, the weak PS3 libary will be even more glaring. For a gamer interested in blu-ray, the PS3 was a safe bet even for no other reason than a PS2 replacement that played BR. Now, you better either REALLY want blu-ray, or be in love with the current PS3 library, or it doesn’t make much sense.
James (Aeropause)

Honestly, considering the back-compat is now software and not hardward on the 80gb, I wouldn’t put it past Sony to charge for the feature as a download.

It still doesn’t make sense, unless this base model was cheaper than the core 360.
http://www.whoisbill.com Bill

can someone explain to me why it wouldn’t be possible for sony to have BC, even though its now software emulation anyway? I don’t understand it at all. Can’t they just make it a download in a firmware update, I mean its just software right? no hardware needed at all. it makes zero sense to me, unless someone can say, “well you see Bill in order to run the software they need to have X chip, the 40gb doesn’t have X chip thus it can’t run the emulation, but saves sony money”
http://bill2me.com Bill

Remember that if Sony eliminates backwards compatibility for game discs they open the possibility for selling old titles on the PSN (a model that’s already proven by the XBLM and VC models.)

I expect Sony to wait it out a few weeks and then offer old games through the PSN with the offer of playback on the PSP. It’s something that was suggested early on but kind of became a forgotten feature.

To claim that BC is not in demand is simply ridiculous – knowing Sony there’s more to the story.
http://www.farbot.com Paul (Aeropause)

Of course, all is not lost if the PS3 sales pick up enough to let them cut the PS2′s price to $99. Then the enthusiasts can keep buying PS2′s to get the PS2 and PS1 gaming they want.

James, I think you have a valid point about the price still not being cheaper than a Core.

Joe, I just remembered that the Core can’t play older games since the 360 needs the hard drive to play the games using the software backwards compatibility.

But James, hm, charging for it as a download at first glance makes sense but I’m guessing they chopped something important out of the system hardware to prevent it from working. Otherwise it makes no sense to sell the same hardware platform and not include software BC when all the work on it is already done by your software engineers.

Ok that just made me angrier. How much could they possibly have saved with that piece of the puzzle?
http://www.farbot.com Paul (Aeropause)

Bill, I think the only reason the PS3 can still play PSOne games is because of the store, which has a laughably miniscule collection of PS1 games anyway, at least in the US.

With PS2 gameplay impossible now I think the possible revenue stream of selling PS2 games through the store is completely out of the question as well. Talk about another boneheaded move when you can slap bigger and bigger hard drives in the thing to accommodate your Store appetite!
Sifer2400

this is deff a bad move if i had enough $ to get a ps3 the first games i would get were all the good stuff i missed out by not having a ps2…
Joe (Aeropause)

Paul, I think I read somewhere that it is the Yamaha GS synthesizer chip that is gone from the board. Since this is the hardware that the PS2 uses for sound, it would make sense. But I am not a PS2 guru, so this could just be speculation.
http://eklipse.net Mike

Another point about the press release is that they stated, and I quote, that there is a wide selection of games available only for the PS3. That is laughable to say the least. Not to mention the fact that there are STILL PS2 ONLY games coming out. That means if you buy Johnny his PS3 he can’t play the newest game because even though its on the same BRAND as your, its not the same version of the console.

DUMBEST MOVE EVAH!

Now I’ll have to try to track down an 80GB version if I want to have any kind of respectable PS3. If Sony keeps this up, its 360 for me…. ugh…
http://www.aeropause.com Stephen

Indeed, Sony should be leveraging the backwards compatibility: “Is your PS2 worn out? Maybe you want… an even BIGGER library of games?”
Jonah

Well, I did my usual Sunday ritual and checked the ad at BestBuy.com. The cheapest Sony Blu-Ray player was $499 on sale this week. If this sucker comes out at $399…hello there Blu-Ray. I really want to get an HD-movie player. The $180 Xbox attachment seems to be the obvious choice for me. But, blu-ray has several good movies as well.

Here’s what I kinda think:
The removal of hardware/software based BC is removed. I don’t think they said that it wouldn’t play PS2 games…….just that it wouldn’t be BC with the PS2 disks…What does my rambling mean? I kinda agree with Bill up above. The Wii has proven that people love older games, and love to spend even more money on them. Why not offer PS2 games for download. The games could be slightly modified to “work” with the PS3 and they would make still make plenty of money.

I think the lower price point isn’t necessarily for Sony fans. I think it is for people like myself. I’ve not been a Playstation fan since the PS2 came out. I loved the PS1, but went the way of Microsoft and Nintendo in later generations. However, I still game, and I am kind of a techie. I think the lower price is to entice people of my sort to get the PS3 as a Blu-Ray player primarily…and then maybe be swayed to get games later. Like God of War…or MGS4 or some other exclusive.

But what do I know? It’s all speculation at this point anyway.
harald

im sure sony will cry about this article when they actually sell some ps3s this christmas thanks to the pricecut…

btw how much did ms pay you for this? or are you one of those stupid xbots that work for free?
iwo4life

The 60Gb EU model was not software only BC. It still had the PS2 GS chip which handled the graphics. It had 4MB of embedded eDram and was removed from this console.

fyi

In order to play the 300 XBOX BC games on your 360 you need a HDD drive so the core has no BC out of the box either. The cost of the HDD is about the same difference in price between the 40 and 60 GB PS3.
http://www.farbot.com Paul (Aeropause)

Harald, the other writers on the site would laugh if they noticed you asking if I am a pro-Microsoft guy.

This article has been linked by Joystiq, and they noticed the main point of the article. Thank you Joystiq.
http://www.joystiq.com/2007/10/08/rumor-40gb-ps3-releases-in-us-on-nov-2-same-issues-as-euro/