So with our PS3 launch moving ever closer, we poor Europeans aren’t even getting the 20GB PS3, and every time I see it mentioned in online conversation it’s derided as vehemently as the Core 360. The “tard pack” is what it’s called in the popular lingo, I believe. I even keep hearing that they can’t shift them in Japan.

Now maybe I’m missing something that everyone else knows, but why is it such a bad option? So it has a smaller hard drive, but you can buy a bigger hard drive than 60GB for less than the price difference. No memory card slots? Can’t see myself using them, and for portable storage my assorted collection of flash drives and portable HDDs will do fine. Even if I did need one, I think USB card readers are so cheap that they actually pay you to take them now.

And that leaves wi-fi. That’s nice, but I have a wired gigabit network which is faster and more reliable than even a new 802.11n network, let alone 802.11g that the PS3 ships with. The 360 wi-fi adaptor may be overpriced, but I don’t end up paying for it even if I’m never going to use it.

Maybe it goes back to when it was due to come without HDMI, really making it a stupid option. Sony’s choice to add HDMI into it changed it into a good option for those who think £425/$600 is silly money for a console (everyone, then), and yet it’s just as stigmatised as options like the Core 360, which actually do lack important functionality. I just think that they’re missing an opportunity by not bringing that version out for, say, £349. That’s a price that I’d consider. £70 more than the 360 is a lot more palatable than £150 more.