http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/18/slim ... -and-desi/

And make it cheaper! For the consumer I mean!

The slim PS2 was awful, massive overheating issues etc. Besides, I like the design of the PS3, the one I bought on day of release is still going strong (albeit with a much larger HDD than the 60GB one supplied).

Dunno about the slimline PS2 (I've got one of the originals that's still going strong), but I think the current size of the PS3 is verging on the ridiculous*, and the messing about with the SKUs has helped in my decision not to buy one (yet at least). Sony will have to get their act together if they're ever to compete with the 360, never mind the Wii...

* The shape and design might be kinda necessary for all I know, but Christ it's big

TBH I've never had an eggbox, but all the [LIFTED] I read about red circles of doom puts me off. My brother-in-law has sent no less than 3 back for repair, my original PS3 is still going...

As for the Wii, I had one, it was boring. The PS3 is easily the best console out there atm. IMO.

Of all the SKU's, the only thing that has really changed is the backwards compatibility (not something I need) and the size of the hard drive. Compare that to the 360 - originally released with no HDMI, then some of them had HDMI and others didn't...then they all had HDMI...bit of a minefield if you bought one at the beginning or wanted to buy one a year or two ago. Originally the Core and the Premium, then they released the Elite...then they renamed the Core the Arcade...then they release another white one with a bigger hard drive...yawn.

You can change the hard drive on the PS3 yourself, so it's kinda irrelevant.

The leaked slim PS3 pictures don't look bad. I think the "full fat" one look absolutely ghastly.

I guess I must be quite lucky with consoles, I've never had red ring of death issues with the Xbox 360 and my slimline PS2 never overheated either.

Yeah, but Sony had enough experience to have more sense, and the BC would have got Sony more customers if they'd kept it, going by a lot of forum posts. I'm one of them - if today's PS3 had BC I'd go order one. The only reasons I didn't order one in the first instance were the ridiculous price and the lack of good games...

Can someone please explain the actual benefits of these slimline consoles please.

I've never really understood why you would buy a console on the basis that it was slightly slimmer than the previous model. Surely you're not moving it about too much, it justs sits where it is, and there's no massive space consumption difference as far as I can tell?

To you and me there will be little benefit (unless it's cheaper), to the likes of Sony and M$... there's one born every minute

Believe it or not, but some people might have been put off buying a large black monolith that'll take up a ton of space next to their TV.
Oh, I know, crazy, but there we are. People like small slim things that aren't too obvious and stand half a chance of sitting neatly under the TV along with a Sky box, and a DVD player.
I'd have been more impressed if Sony released the 2001 Monolith Edition PS3 and made it 12 foot tall.

Have you seen the sales figures for the original PS2?

The PS3 is disgracefully big though, and I'd say more than a few people have been put off - it certainly wouldn't help when comparing the consoles' prices

When I came to deciding to buy consoles, it was the notorious RROD which swayed me to Sony. Decided to hold out for the Elite a little longer and still people were getting RROD issues! So went and bought a PS3.

Haven't used it much but then haven't had the time for it either.

As for size, yes it's monolithic. A slimmer version would be fantastic but I'm not selling the PS3 just to get a slimline one. I do wish I had delved in early and bought the one with backwards compatibility. Opens up a huge world of games that could have been bought and played. Would have made Sony more money.

I was looking at the 60Gb version in Game today - they still want something ridiculous like £270 or something for it. It's second-hand ffs!

I suspect there were two reasons for dropping BC:

1. Sony figured they'd save a few £ on each PS3, this being important since each one was costing them to sell.

2. The PS2 just refuses to die! Also see M$ and XP

Don't get me wrong though, I agree, it was incredibly short-sighted

Yes but they could have recouped some of the cost in increased PS2 game sales. Admittedly, most sony fanboys would already have a huge catalogue of PS2 games anyway but they still could have made some cash from it.

Yip, I agree, and as I've stated, it's the primary reason I don't own a PS3 yet