It's not about the hard-drive, it's all about the built-in wireless that makes the 60Gb PS3 more appealing than the 20Gb one. It's a one-off payment for the ultimate console... let's quit all the moaning, save up our pennies and feel the love for PS3.

Strange how there aren't so many complaints at the moment about the extortionate price of Windows Vista. At least with PS3 you get cutting-edge hardware that will last for years, and a Blu-Ray player to boot. What's in the Vista box? A couple of DVDs, and the opportunity to slow your previously joyous PC down to a crawl for the sake of some flashy menus. Some may say this is unrelated, but Vista is aiming for gamers too, is it not? It's pricey and confusing. At least with PS3, you know what you are getting for your hard-earned dosh.

The only thing that puts me off PS3 is the broken, unrumbling controller. I'd be first in the queue to buy one if Sony hadn't been so backwards-thinking about that stupid "motion controlling" nonsense. I love the rumble feature and I know I'll sense something missing from games that used to have it and don't any more. As soon as they sort this out they can have £500 from me. Until then... I'll stick with what I have. But I will NEVER buy the 20Gb pauper's model.

I'd say it's not the presence or lack of either of those features that make the 20GB or 60GB versions of the PS3 appealing to most people. It's the price, pure and simple.

Most people don't have a wireless network and couldn't care less about linking their PSPs with their PS3s. Most people couldn't care less about card readers and hard drive space. Most gamers want a kickass games console and want to pay as little as possible for it.

The reason that the 360 "premium" pack sold well against the Core is that the Core was broken. No hard drive meant that the 360's ace in the hole (Live, arcade, etc) was not the simple to use system it should have been. No wireless controller meant the same old "wires across the living room" and "must be sitting close to the console" problems that we've been living with since the dawn of time.

The 20GB PS3 has none of those issues when compared to the 60GB version, so the only factor in most people's minds is price. It's the old "why should I pay for features I don't want" argument. And it's a valid one for most people.

It hardly takes a financial genius to state that you will sell more of a cheaper item than you will of a more expensive one if there is no functional or qualitative difference between the two in the minds of your consumers.

It's also worth noting that most of the retailers quoted in the MCV story qualified their statements with the idea that they would prefer the 60GB at launch and only bring the 20GB in later. This is because early adopters are the ones for whom the arguments I've laid out above don't apply. They want the best and they want it first, to hell with the price.

I think you need to keep in mind that most people probably don't have £425 of disposable income that they would be willing to spend on a game console.

Yeah, I still think the ideas of a cheaper version is a good idea, because most people don't want to pay extra for features they don't want, although other people actually want as many features as they can get.

You just have to be careful about which features you remove on the cheap version. However, the way they have done it, I don't think is right, since a difference of £80 isn't enough, considering the low-end version would still be £350. If you don't have a spare £425, I doubt you would even have a spare £350.

I'm surprised how much people miss rumbling, because it's hardly any improvement, but Sony could have left scope for it, such as an expansion, or featured it in games with the possibility of getting rumble back later on.

A funny was of looking at the low-end version is, though: they cut out all the "unnecessary" features and sell it at a cheaper price... if they're unnecessary, why didn't they just do that in the first place (to the "normal" version), and sell at a cheaper price to more people? They could always have upgrades for people who really care about it.

In fact, I estimate that there's a similarity between paying extra for unnecessary features (already built in), and buying upgrades, in terms of who is actually in favour of it. I don't think it's a good idea, though, when the price is so much higher than the competition's.