$600 PS3 Ships Without HDMI Cable

Eurogamer reports that the $600 PS3, which comes available with an HDMI port, will not ship with the necessary cable to actually hook the machine up. From the article: "According to the specs page on the official US PS3 website, which notes: 'HDMI cable not included. Additional equipment may be required to use the HDMI connector.' Sony has long promoted the 60GB PS3's HDMI output as a key feature of the machine. The 20GB model, however, doesn't feature HDMI - and nor does the Xbox 360, as it goes, despite occasional rumours of a hardware revision in the offing." The machine will, of course, come with a composite cable.

Pinch Those Pennies! Ouch!

[blueZhift]

It seems a cheap trick, but I understand why they'd choose not to ship with cable. Depending on whose numbers you believe, the sale of peripherals like this may significantly cut the money lost selling the console itself. I'm assuming that the peripherals are not sold at a loss.

Re:Pinch Those Pennies! Ouch!

[ronanbear]

It would be a moot point if you got a HDMI cable with your HD TV.

Many users don't have the right screen so a cable wouldn't be much use for them. They'll just have to buy a cable when they are buying their screen.

PS3 - movie player

[ConfusedSelfHating]

Wasn't the PS3 supposed to be a fantastic movie player which was a $1000 value for a $600 price? Without games. HDMI is being forced on the public because of the Image Constraint Token and Sony wants you to pay extra for the privilege. Maybe someone can post some positive PS3 articles in order to balance out the negative news. In fact, someone can just respond with a number of recent positive developments for the PS3. Oh and re-listing the PS3 stats over and over again doesn't count.

FWIW

[greysky]

This is what they always do. If they ship with the HDMI cable, then they have to also include the composite, since that's the lowest common denominator. More people would have to buy a downgrade cable if it came with HDMI, than have to buy an upgrade if it ships with comp, so the decision is easy. It may sound like they're being cheap by not shipping with both, but no other console that I'm aware of has ever shipped with > 1 type of interface cable, and since the units already ship at a loss...

Same as USB devices

[LoudMusic]

How many USB devices do you know of that come with a cable? The problem, as I see it, is that first of all less than 10% of consumers are going to use HDMI anyway. Why make the other 90% pay for a $60 cable they're not going to use.

And for the ones that do use it they probably have some notion that whatever come with the system isn't good enough and will buy a Monster cable anyway. Or the one it came with won't be long enough, or what-have-you.

I have no problem with connecting cables not being included. It's a very customized component. No blame or ridicule here.

Re:Pinch Those Pennies! Ouch!

[gEvil (beta)]

I'm assuming that the peripherals are not sold at a loss.

No, they're not. Peripherals are typically sold at a ridiculous markup. I mean, why does an 8MB memory card for a PS2 still cost 25 bucks? I guarantee the HDMI cable will be sold for between 30 and 40 bucks.

Re:This is not news.

[Anonymous Coward]

"why would Sony ship every PS3 which HDMI cables, when such a tiny percentage of homes even have HDMI ready TV's."

yea but, why would you buy the $600 PS3 if you don't have a TV with HDMI?

Re:This is not news.

[Garse Janacek]

If you have $600 to drop on a PS3, you have another $20 for cables, true. But if they're advertising this as some sort of luxury sports car of the gaming world, and charging a huge amount for HD and Blu-ray, why assume by default that people won't be able to use them? If you're correct that such a "tiny percentage of homes have HDMI-ready TVs" that it is a negligible issue for prospective PS3 owners, then where's the damn $300 version of the console that doesn't include HDMI/Blu-ray support?

Re:Blu-Ray curse

[DrXym]

$600 also buys you wi-fi, a 60 Gb harddrive, 512Mb, a multi-core processor all of which combine to give you a games console, multimedia and internet system that sits under your TV. The price isn't particularly outrageous for its features if you compare it to the Mac Mini for example.

Re:Pinch Those Pennies! Ouch!

[steveo777]

I'm thinking they finally realised that market penetration still isn't that high for 1080p TVs, or any other Hi-defs for that matter. Took a cue from Nintendo, probably. It would be a huge waste of money if you sold 3 million PS3's at an additional loss of the 6 bucks (18 million loss!) for the cable and maybe only 200,000 of those buyers can use them at release. So if they sell those 200,000 cables at a $15 profit, then that's 3 million back in their pockets (a buck for every system sold).

More improtantly, they'll get a much better idea of how many people are atually utilizing the tech at this time. When they release sales numbers for the peripheral, then I'm sure that will be a very good indication of market penetration Hi-def sets in gamer households.

Re:This is not news.

[badasscat]

But if so few people have HDMI capable TV's ... er, why support it in the first place?

For the same reason the PS1 and PS2 supported s-video.

And btw, the PS1, PS2 and Xbox didn't come with s-video cables either, even though they supported it. The point is you put the cable in the box that's basically the lowest common denominator supported by all TV's, and then if someone wants to upgrade it, they can.

There's also the obvious question of if you're going to pay $600 for a console, would you rather Sony put $600 worth of actual machine into the box, or $600 worth of add-on junk that a lot of people aren't even going to be able to use?

But this is really nothing new, and I have no idea why it's become such a story the past couple days (it was on Joystiq too, and probably other sites) other than the fact that it's become de rigeur to bash the PS3 lately. Consoles never come with the best cable; they come with the cable supported by the most TV's.

The bigger, more important thing to note is that the PS3 has a standard HDMI port, meaning you can buy any HDMI cable for it. Why no bashing of the Xbox 360 for requiring a proprietary, MS-licensed cable at an inflated price?

btw, the PS3 will come with component cables, not just composite. Another sign of bias on the part of the submitter here...

Re:Pinch Those Pennies! Ouch!

[skinfitz]

It would be a moot point if you got a HDMI cable with your HD TV.

...except it's Sony and therefore the cable will no doubt be proprietary at the PS3 end.

Re:This is not news.

[LoverOfJoy]

I agree with what you're saying but did the PS1, PS2, and Xbox list s-video compatible as a major bullet point?

I think people are upset because the two different PS3 models make the upper one feel like a bundle of some sort. That's mostly what gamers have had experience with when it comes to two different models of basically the same thing. You either buy the bare bones unit with one controller and no games, or you buy the one with two controllers, a game thrown in, etc. everything you need to really have fun.

To find out the deluxe version doesn't include everything needed to get the full experience feels like a rip off. Especially when a lot of people are already grumbling about the $600 price tag.

So while I agree that this isn't anything really new and people are over-reacting, I can also understand why people are more upset about it than they were with the PS2 lacking an S-Video cable.

Re:Blu-Ray curse

[Control Group]

All consoles to date have shipped this way; the composite cable is included and the HD cables are extras.
Except, of course, the PS3's primary next-gen competitor, the 360, which comes with component cables included.

Oh noes!

[be-fan]

Except every major console in history has shipped with a lowest-common-denominator cable.

Does the 360 ship with a component cable? Did the dreamcast ship with a VGA cable?

Will the Wii ship with a component cable, despite the fact that its required to enable progressive-scan mode? The GC didn't...

Re:Pinch Those Pennies! Ouch!

[faust2097]

Actually you're 100% wrong. It's a completely normal HDMI port, look at any picture of it [totalplaystation.com] and you'll see that. It also has a normal optical port so whether your taste runs to the $2 monoprice cable or the $6000 Nordost one you'll be able to connect it without giving Sony an extra dime.

Two reasons

[Sycraft-fu]

1) HD is one of the big things that the PS3 is being billed for. Sony has been pimping that heavily. If it's such a fundamental part of the console, maybe you include the hookups out of box?

2) For most people, the cable won't be that cheap. They probably won't know about online cable warehouses, and how much cheaper they are. So they'll pick up an HDMI cable at Best Buy or wherever they got the PS3. There, it's more like $60, not $20. Cables are the big money maker for places like that.

I'm just saying at $600, seems a little, well, cheapskate. When I but a $40 DVD player, ok I'm happy if it even has a power cable. However when I buy a $200 DVD player I generally expect to see all the extras like cables (mine came with composite, S-Video and component) and batteries for the remote included. It's expensive so they can afford to include the extras.

Yes, I understand that the PS3 is sold at a loss, whereas my DVD player was sold at a significant profit. However I'm talking about average consumer perception here. If you buy a premium, expensive product, you tend to expect to not get gypped on the extras. Feels real cheapskate to buy a $600 unit and for the sales guy to then say "You want HD support? 'Cause that needs an HDMI cable. We've got this $60 Sony one here but we really recommend the $250 Monster Cable one for best quality." Don't think the Best Buy people won't, either.

Re:This is not news.

[Garse Janacek]

Tell me again why people are getting bent out of shape here - it's a cheap $20 cable that 5% of PS3 owners are going to want/need

But that's my entire point -- Sony's fundamental premise for this entire console is that most serious gamers will want/need HDMI and blu-ray support. If this is not true, and the percentage is closer to the 5% that you claim, then Sony's entire strategy for this generation is invalidated, and they should have made a $300-400 console instead. If you're already assuming that the vast majority even of the self-selected population that is actually willing to spend $600 on a PS3 is still not going to be able to use the most expensive part of the system, then what is that most expensive part for?

Re:Cables not included

[crabpeople]

"The #1 reason cables aren't included in most peripheral devices is because the user most likely already has a cable just like the one needed."

Thats a good guess but your wrong. Having worked in retail computer sales, I can say with absolute certainty that with printers, scanners, etc... the store makes shit money markup wise (10-$30 most printers). Most cables COST less than $3. The stores mark them up 1000% or more. So you get a A-B usb cable costing $15, instead of the 50cents it costs the store to purchase it. If you dont believe me, go to any dollar store. You can find all sorts of computer cables selling for a dollar. Those stores are still making money selling it for a dollar.

This is also why you get crazy $100+ DVI cables that are "gold plated" which cost wholesale like $10. This is where computer stores make the most percentage profits. Think about it. When you make a cable, your basically taking rolls of cable that cost pennies a foot, crimping it and sticking ends on.

Re:Bastards!

[kyouteki]

It's a digital cable. It doesn't matter if it's oxygen-free or pure gold or any of that other shit Monster makes consumers think they need. As long as the pulses get from one side of the cable to the other, it doesn't matter if the cable is $15 or $150 for digital.

HDMI Unnecessary Anyways

[Anonymous Coward]

HDMI being included in the PS3 is nothing more than Sony trying to save face from their initial boasting of the inclusion of 2 HDMI ports and now cutting it back to one. (Remember the dual HDMI output touted and now dropped?)

The only thing HDMI really helps for is 1080p vs. 1080i which unless you own an extremely high end system you won't be able to notice the difference. Furthermore how many people actually own a 1080p compatible TV?

Sony isn't including the cord because it isn't necessary for the overwhelming portion of their target market. I wouldn't even be surprised if they dropped HDMI from future hardware revisions (kinda PSthree kind of deal).

Finally, no complaints about Microsoft using proprietary cords, all companys do this. Sony has for years, Nintendo did. Only the NES and 1st revision of the Sega Genesis had standard RCA A/V cables coming out of the console.

Re:Pinch Those Pennies! Ouch!

[Bohiti]

I enjoy my music, whether on 128kbps mp3 or cd. Call it blissful ignorance.

Re:Pinch Those Pennies! Ouch!

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you don't. Know why? How many people own a HDTV, now how many own regular TV's? The HDMI is not standard for most of us, and would be completely useless.

Re:This is not news.

[KDR_11k]

Well, one of the few advantages the 600$ version has over the 500$ one is that HDMI port so Sony could expect that a large part of the 600$ buyers intend to use the HDMI port.

Re:Bastards!

[chaoticgeek]

The point is you are spending 600 on the better of the two to get the extra features which already is a bit of cash, not including any games or extra controllers. So by the end of it you can be up to about 800 with a few games, and an extra controller. Since they offer two diffrent models, one with HMDI and one without you would expect there to be digital cables for the one that includes it as an extra 100 feature.

Re:Bastards!

[Yocto Yotta]

Monster's strength is definitely in it's marketing. When I was a wee lad working in a few music instrument and consumer electronics retail jobs, I got to see Monster's spin coming out of the mouths of some of their best marketing minds. The facts don't lie though (I'm too lazy to back them up). If something happens to be a unique feature and not just a fancy name for a manufacturering process or performance rating standard in all other cabling, it usually doesn't actually do anything to improve sound quality. Gas-injected dielectric? Witch craft!

call me when the power adaptor costs extra

[MooseTick]

As others have said, big whoop concerning a cable that a single digit % of users will need isn't included. I'm waiting for the day when the power adaptor isn't included and you have to pay $49.99 extra for the priviledge to be able to plug your game unit in the wall! I believe that day is coming.

Re:Bastards!

[DragonWriter]

99% of the time items that produce video signals come with the cables, items that receive said signals do not. This is just the way the market seems to have worked things out.

Actually, IME, most things that support more than one output mode (for instance, composite and S-video) come only with the worst cable.) And that's not just for video; the PS2, for instance, didn't include optical audio cables, though its supported them. The PS3 seems par for the course here in not including HDMI cables, even though it has HDMI capability.

Two reasons invalidated

[Shadowlore]

1) HD is one of the big things that the PS3 is being billed for. Sony has been pimping that heavily. If it's such a fundamental part of the console, maybe you include the hookups out of box?

I'm in the alleged '5%'. I don't want the cable included. Why? Because it will be the wrong length. It doesnt matter what length it is, it will be just a bit too short or way to friggin long. Just as a cat is always on the wrong side of the door, the legth of OEM cables are always wrong. I'd end up buying a new cable to fit my needs and wind up paying for a cable I couldn't use (the OEM cable).

And the OEM cable would suck. Same principle. OEM cables are always cheap -- even on "premium" set-ups. I buy rather high end stereo and video equipment. Then I buy cabling for it because any OEM cables have always a) sucked and B) been the wrong size.

So, speaking as a "member of the 5%" I say: "Good move Sony".

If you buy a premium, expensive product, you tend to expect to not get gypped on the extras.

That's just it though. "Extras" are by definition not "standard includes" So if you admit that the cable is an extra it must not be included. Then it would not be an extra would it?

My HD projection TV didn't come with cables and it cost more than the PS3 and it is the display portion. Arguably, if any piece is to include the cables, the display should. Most likely the alleged 5% won't give a damn about the cable not included since they'll already know they need one and will either have it or be ready to buy it to fit their desires/physical requirements; and they'll know where to get it.

Or, the 95% of people who don't have the display for it won't need one.

Expensive and/or premium does not necessarily mean "everything". In this case, the PS3 is "premium" because of the alleged performance, "advanced" features such as Blu-Ray and full HD output, it's backward compatibility, and that it is a "Playstation". Like it or not, that last bit matters. Just as many people used to refer to home video consoles as Nintendos even if they eg. Sega.

Re:This is not news.

[donaldm]

Good post.

I saw this article about 2 days ago.

I have never seen HD-TV's, player/recorders or amplifiers that have HDMI come with a HDMI cable so why blame Sony for not shipping a cable with the PS3. As the the man said "Move along, nothing to see here".