Context Sensitive: Who Is the PS3 For?

shadow skill

New member
Oct 12, 2007
2,850
0
0
Logan Westbrook said:
Random Bobcat said:
Unprofessional to see the least, very weak projection of emotion as a response when a sensible counter illstration eludes you.

Perhaps you might want to rein yourself in, you're looking foolish with such statements.
Yes, it's me who looks foolish. Definitely.

As for a rebuttal, Waldo's main complaint seems to be that the PS3 gets an unfair rap from gaming journalists, which may or may not be true, but doesn't really have a great deal to do with the article; he's just using it as a jumping off point for a rant about journalistic bias.

Does he have a point? Maybe, maybe not, but that's not what this article is about.
So it is wrong to point out that an article (Which isn't really very well thought out because the basic premise is fundamentally flawed.) fits into a larger pattern with respect to coverage related to the Playstation 3?
 

Welshlad

New member
Mar 11, 2010
1
0
0
Just an extra point of view from somebody I think Sony were targetting in their initial launch...

I have a PS3 (along with a PSP), also a Wii and my housemate has a 360. I chose the PS3 for the Blu-ray player, since then I've found the extra home entertainment functionality to be the best thing about it. I've got a Shuttle PC upstairs running a TVersity media server that plays directly onto my TV through the PS3. My PSP can connect up to this (and to BBC IPlayer) through the PS3 so I can watch TV and listen to my music on my PSP. The Blu-ray quality is great, up until recently it was about the same price as a dedicated player but had better firmware updates. Movies just look amazing.

Now, I admit I have a decent set games and I really enjoy them (God of War 3 is on pre-order as we speak), however I have a lot more Blu-rays and I don't think the PS3 would have survived on games alone. It's more expensive than the other consoles and the picture quality is a tiny bit better on the 360. By the same note, the 360 can only become more than a games console if you're willing to pay more for the extras than it would cost for a PS3.

So, there are three markets out there. If you want to just play games for an hour or so a week, get a Wii. If you want to just play games all day, get a 360. If you want to watch movies and play games all day, get a PS3.

Call me boring but when it comes to console wars, just get what you like the most and let the other guy do the same. As long as you enjoy yourselves, you both made the right choice.
 

mrdude2010

New member
Aug 6, 2009
1,315
0
0
SaintWaldo said:
So, what does Natal say about XBox? I'd just like to know that the same standards are being applied.

It doesn't make sense to me to say Sony is confusing folks because they are following Wii with Move when MS is doing...the SAME thing with Natal.

Why is Sony described as "confused" for chasing the Wii's casual audience, when MS does the same thing?

Why was the press obsessed with Sony's motion controller name, and whether it was "exciting", but they've never asked MS to give us something other than the dev name?

I mean, come on, even the straw man in the article seems a bit out of bounds. Seriously, someone walks into a game store and we should believe they wouldn't be able to work out that the PS3 plays games? In my opinion, this so-called "identity crisis" is as much a factor of the (mostly western) press reaction as anything else. No, it doesn't matter that I'm a gamer. I was never confused about what I was buying. The people who I've recommended a PS3 to knew what they were getting (and so did the folks I recommended get a Wii or 360, BTW), a game machine that played the kind of games they wanted.

Where is the review of the XBox history? That machine seems a bit confused right now, as well. One example: they seem to have changed from "10 years is WAY too long for a console lifespan" to "well, you know, we think the XBox 360 will be around until 2015". THAT'S a reversal that has gone completely unnoticed by the western press. They have bought into Sony's lifespan plan. In fact, you can find Nintendo saying similar things about the lifespan of the Wii. Why isn't this as noteworthy as a retrospective of the PS3's marketing, and not the FIRST one at that, mind you? Just 2 years after the fact, XBox has been allowed to live down a 30% defect rate that bordered on fraud. But Sony is just CRAZY because 6 years ago they had a weird add. You see why that might seem a bit off-putting?

You see, it's news if it's new. We already know the early marketing was filled with hubris and silliness. That's not news. We also know ALL consoles are putting out motion controls, which in a regular world running on human logic means that none of them are confused about being gaming consoles that have motion controllers.

Why it's news for Sony, and apparently bad news from the tone of the write up, well, I guess that's wisdom for the US gaming press to create and deliver.

it's because everybody knows both the PS3 and XBOX360's motion controls are going to fizzle and die in a few months, so people are punish the PS3 for relentlessly advertising their motion controls
until they develop realistic feedback systems, gaming has been and forever will be controller based, and add ons like natal and ps3 motion are just to try to cash in on the unprecedented and undeserved success of the wii

also the gush of ps3 fanboy semen on this thread is starting to annoy me
 

bismarck55

New member
Mar 1, 2010
284
0
0
Susan's article is great, but this thread is embarrassing compared to usual standard here on the escapist.

Reading comprehension is key, people.
 

smithy1234

New member
Dec 12, 2008
1,218
0
0
Sony needs to realize that they can't makes a game system that will be massively successful among a casual audience AND massively successful among a hardcore audience. It's trying to be some kind of mutated deformed child of the Wii and Xbox 360.

The PS3 beats the Wii in hardcore titles by a long shot, I have no issue with the Wii but you have to admit that it's aimed more at a casual audience. The Xbox 360 has an equal amount of hardcore games as the PS3 and there is large debate about which is the better console. This was a good standpoint for a while, the Wii took in the casual audience while the PS3 and Xbox 360 fought over the hardcore audience. Now, Sony has fucked it all up by trying to win over the casual audience (which is already firmly owned by the Wii) AND fight Microsoft for the hardcore audience.

This is a message for Sony "IN YOUR WILDEST DREAMS, YOU WILL NEVER WIN THE BATTLE FOR THE CASUAL GAMERS AND HARDCORE GAMERS!!! CHOOSE YOUR FIGHT AND STICK WITH IT!!!".
 

Pevva

New member
Oct 13, 2009
2
0
0
The PS3 is a ninja, why do you think it only came out in black for so long?

When it first came out you could justify buying it to your non-gamer girlfriend / wife by saying it's for Blu-Ray DVDs and photos. Later, with PayTV you could say you could run your TV through it.

Then it's in the house and your GF/wife has to use the controller to change channels and stuff, she is learning how to use it by stealth. Then BAM!! You spring Little Big Planet on her and suddenly you're both gaming.

Now it's a few years later, hopefully you're still with your GF/wife and starting to have some kids, so the PS3 steps up again with motion control to stop you getting a Wii ... Sony wants the PS3 to be the only console or multimedia device you need.
 

Fearzone

Boyz! Boyz! Boyz!
Dec 3, 2008
1,241
0
0
When it sets its mind to it, the PS3 can do everything the Wii can do (once it has the motion controller), and everything the XBox360 can do, and then it can still do more besides. Nothing wrong with putting that message out there. Furthermore there is no sense in paiting itself into a corner.

When kids have to ask what a Wii or an Xbox is, the PS3 will still be around.
 

Mcface

New member
Aug 30, 2009
2,266
0
0
SaintWaldo said:
So, what does Natal say about XBox? I'd just like to know that the same standards are being applied.

It doesn't make sense to me to say Sony is confusing folks because they are following Wii with Move when MS is doing...the SAME thing with Natal.

Why is Sony described as "confused" for chasing the Wii's casual audience, when MS does the same thing?

Why was the press obsessed with Sony's motion controller name, and whether it was "exciting", but they've never asked MS to give us something other than the dev name?

I mean, come on, even the straw man in the article seems a bit out of bounds. Seriously, someone walks into a game store and we should believe they wouldn't be able to work out that the PS3 plays games? In my opinion, this so-called "identity crisis" is as much a factor of the (mostly western) press reaction as anything else. No, it doesn't matter that I'm a gamer. I was never confused about what I was buying. The people who I've recommended a PS3 to knew what they were getting (and so did the folks I recommended get a Wii or 360, BTW), a game machine that played the kind of games they wanted.

Where is the review of the XBox history? That machine seems a bit confused right now, as well. One example: they seem to have changed from "10 years is WAY too long for a console lifespan" to "well, you know, we think the XBox 360 will be around until 2015". THAT'S a reversal that has gone completely unnoticed by the western press. They have bought into Sony's lifespan plan. In fact, you can find Nintendo saying similar things about the lifespan of the Wii. Why isn't this as noteworthy as a retrospective of the PS3's marketing, and not the FIRST one at that, mind you? Just 2 years after the fact, XBox has been allowed to live down a 30% defect rate that bordered on fraud. But Sony is just CRAZY because 6 years ago they had a weird add. You see why that might seem a bit off-putting?

You see, it's news if it's new. We already know the early marketing was filled with hubris and silliness. That's not news. We also know ALL consoles are putting out motion controls, which in a regular world running on human logic means that none of them are confused about being gaming consoles that have motion controllers.

Why it's news for Sony, and apparently bad news from the tone of the write up, well, I guess that's wisdom for the US gaming press to create and deliver.
Did you read the article?
Sony copied the Wii's controller to a T, and even ripped off the commericals.

While Natal has no controller, and really only has one thing in common, and that's that they somehow use your body other than to press buttons.

It's typical fanboy defense mechanism that snaps somewhere in your brain, when even the slightest bit of criticism is given towards your console of choice, it's instantly. "NO, THIS IS WRONG. THE OTHER CONSOLE IS WORSE, WHY DONT YOU MAKE FUN OF THEM?"
 

ace_of_something

New member
Sep 19, 2008
5,995
0
0
hrm. Interesting. My wife and I loves our PS3. It's played daily by at least one of us. I think they should market it to hip young childless couples. Though that would require more multiplayer games (multiplayer, NOT online)
 

Vaccine

New member
Feb 13, 2010
475
0
0
I think the PS3 is like a uneducated middle child, jack of all trades, master of none. The foundations for a great gaming system is there, but Sony made a lot of questionable choices during it's lifetime so far and fucked it more than they know.
 

shadow skill

New member
Oct 12, 2007
2,850
0
0
Pevva said:
The PS3 is a ninja, why do you think it only came out in black for so long?

When it first came out you could justify buying it to your non-gamer girlfriend / wife by saying it's for Blu-Ray DVDs and photos. Later, with PayTV you could say you could run your TV through it.

Then it's in the house and your GF/wife has to use the controller to change channels and stuff, she is learning how to use it by stealth. Then BAM!! You spring Little Big Planet on her and suddenly you're both gaming.

Now it's a few years later, hopefully you're still with your GF/wife and starting to have some kids, so the PS3 steps up again with motion control to stop you getting a Wii ... Sony wants the PS3 to be the only console or multimedia device you need.
Good point. This has always been the overarching goal for the PS3. It was never targeted solely at gamers though they are a big part. Sony has never been as big into the "hardcore" market as Microsoft despite what some people may think. They have always straddled the middle of the road (Just look at the PSN store and some of their bigger past franchises if you don't believe me.) when it came to the markets they were trying to hit.

Mcface said:
SaintWaldo said:
So, what does Natal say about XBox? I'd just like to know that the same standards are being applied.

It doesn't make sense to me to say Sony is confusing folks because they are following Wii with Move when MS is doing...the SAME thing with Natal.

Why is Sony described as "confused" for chasing the Wii's casual audience, when MS does the same thing?

Why was the press obsessed with Sony's motion controller name, and whether it was "exciting", but they've never asked MS to give us something other than the dev name?

I mean, come on, even the straw man in the article seems a bit out of bounds. Seriously, someone walks into a game store and we should believe they wouldn't be able to work out that the PS3 plays games? In my opinion, this so-called "identity crisis" is as much a factor of the (mostly western) press reaction as anything else. No, it doesn't matter that I'm a gamer. I was never confused about what I was buying. The people who I've recommended a PS3 to knew what they were getting (and so did the folks I recommended get a Wii or 360, BTW), a game machine that played the kind of games they wanted.

Where is the review of the XBox history? That machine seems a bit confused right now, as well. One example: they seem to have changed from "10 years is WAY too long for a console lifespan" to "well, you know, we think the XBox 360 will be around until 2015". THAT'S a reversal that has gone completely unnoticed by the western press. They have bought into Sony's lifespan plan. In fact, you can find Nintendo saying similar things about the lifespan of the Wii. Why isn't this as noteworthy as a retrospective of the PS3's marketing, and not the FIRST one at that, mind you? Just 2 years after the fact, XBox has been allowed to live down a 30% defect rate that bordered on fraud. But Sony is just CRAZY because 6 years ago they had a weird add. You see why that might seem a bit off-putting?

You see, it's news if it's new. We already know the early marketing was filled with hubris and silliness. That's not news. We also know ALL consoles are putting out motion controls, which in a regular world running on human logic means that none of them are confused about being gaming consoles that have motion controllers.

Why it's news for Sony, and apparently bad news from the tone of the write up, well, I guess that's wisdom for the US gaming press to create and deliver.
Did you read the article?
Sony copied the Wii's controller to a T, and even ripped off the commericals.

While Natal has no controller, and really only has one thing in common, and that's that they somehow use your body other than to press buttons.

It's typical fanboy defense mechanism that snaps somewhere in your brain, when even the slightest bit of criticism is given towards your console of choice, it's instantly. "NO, THIS IS WRONG. THE OTHER CONSOLE IS WORSE, WHY DONT YOU MAKE FUN OF THEM?"
Hmm Nintendo wasn't the first company to do motion controls you know. No one seems to be complaining that Microsoft "copied" the DC controller or that Microsoft "copied" the eyetoy for Natal.....

You sound like you are projecting your own "fanboy" reaction on to someone else.
 

mrx19869

New member
Jun 17, 2009
502
0
0
i would be nice to get back on topic.....


the PS3 is not going through an identity crisis. it knows who it is.. its going to be everything.. that means

if you want to
play a intense game you can
play a not intecse game you can
play a game without a dualshock controller you can
play a game with a dualshock you can
watch a movie you can
watch a blue way movie you can
access the internet you can

sony marketing has stayed relatively the same, it has shown the features
now that it can do more there are new marketing...
 

mrx19869

New member
Jun 17, 2009
502
0
0
ace_of_something said:
hrm. Interesting. My wife and I loves our PS3. It's played daily by at least one of us. I think they should market it to hip young childless couples. Though that would require more multiplayer games (multiplayer, NOT online)
thats not what they want to do, they want to let people know that if you want to do it, you can do it on the ps3, because the ps3 does eveything
 

DRD 1812

New member
Mar 1, 2010
27
0
0
I don't really want to get into the thick of the argument here, but can those lauding the "It only does everything" campaign really not see how that is bad marketing? If you tell someone that an object does everything they're going to react with confusion because "everything" by itself doesn't mean anything. In the end they have to take the time to explain what "everything" means to the viewer anyway.
A different example:
"The new Ford Vehicle, it only does everything."
"What does that mean?"
"Well, 'everything' means that it gets good gas mileage, has a lot of cargo space, seats four, and has a great stereo!"

What's more is when you claim something can do everything people will always find things it can't do.

"Can it go off-road? Can it drive around a race-track? Can use it to tow my boat? Can it..."
"Well no, it can't do 'everything-everything' only what we say is everything."

Then they have to keep adding things onto the device, like motion controls and who knows what else later down the line, to ensure it does actually do everything. Mind, that isn't really a bad thing, but the tone makes Sony sound like a late-night infomercial to me. I'm waiting for them to say, "but wait there's more!"
 

WhiteTigerShiro

New member
Sep 26, 2008
2,366
0
0
SaintWaldo said:
So, what does Natal say about XBox? I'd just like to know that the same standards are being applied.

It doesn't make sense to me to say Sony is confusing folks because they are following Wii with Move when MS is doing...the SAME thing with Natal.

Why is Sony described as "confused" for chasing the Wii's casual audience, when MS does the same thing?
The difference is that Natal is actually a unique interface. Yeah it's motion control, but arguing that it's copying the Wii is like saying that the 360 controller is copying the Gamecube controller. They both have buttons, sure, but otherwise they're completely different. Meanwhile you have Sony's entry into the motion control market, and it's basically like they just re-skinned a Wiimote. It's classic Sony copying the good ideas because they're short on coming-up with their own.
 

shadow skill

New member
Oct 12, 2007
2,850
0
0
WhiteTigerShiro said:
SaintWaldo said:
So, what does Natal say about XBox? I'd just like to know that the same standards are being applied.

It doesn't make sense to me to say Sony is confusing folks because they are following Wii with Move when MS is doing...the SAME thing with Natal.

Why is Sony described as "confused" for chasing the Wii's casual audience, when MS does the same thing?
The difference is that Natal is actually a unique interface. Yeah it's motion control, but arguing that it's copying the Wii is like saying that the 360 controller is copying the Gamecube controller. They both have buttons, sure, but otherwise they're completely different. Meanwhile you have Sony's entry into the motion control market, and it's basically like they just re-skinned a Wiimote. It's classic Sony copying the good ideas because they're short on coming-up with their own.
Which is why Nintendo wasn't the first group to do motion controllers? Which is why the Natal system (Using cameras for detecting motion.) has been worked on for years outside of Microsoft? RRRRRIIIIIGGGHTTT.....
 

mrx19869

New member
Jun 17, 2009
502
0
0
DRD 1812 said:
I don't really want to get into the thick of the argument here, but can those lauding the "It only does everything" campaign really not see how that is bad marketing? If you tell someone that an object does everything they're going to react with confusion because "everything" by itself doesn't mean anything. In the end they have to take the time to explain what "everything" means to the viewer anyway.
A different example:
"The new Ford Vehicle, it only does everything."
"What does that mean?"
"Well, 'everything' means that it gets good gas mileage, has a lot of cargo space, seats four, and has a great stereo!"

What's more is when you claim something can do everything people will always find things it can't do.

"Can it go off-road? Can it drive around a race-track? Can use it to tow my boat? Can it..."
"Well no, it can't do 'everything-everything' only what we say is everything."

Then they have to keep adding things onto the device, like motion controls and who knows what else later down the line, to ensure it does actually do everything. Mind, that isn't really a bad thing, but the tone makes Sony sound like a late-night infomercial to me. I'm waiting for them to say, "but wait there's more!"
what sensible things can the PS3 not do?
do you buy a ford just by listing to the marketing? no you do independent research
again

marketing is only meant to push people in a direction. after that it is the consumers responsibility to find out what the product can or can not do

this article shifts the blame to sony when the blame is on the consumer.
 

ThisNewGuy

New member
Apr 28, 2009
315
0
0
Susan Arendt said:
mrx19869 said:
does anybody know if this "Susan Arendt" the author of this post owns a PS3, and if so what model?
Yes, I do, an original launch model. Ah, sweet, sweet BC....

Also, I don't quite understand why people think I am confused about a PS3's capabilities. I also state quite clearly that I think the PS3 is a great machine, and simply wish that Sony would do it justice by crafting a clear message for it.
The thing is, "it only does everything" is a pretty clear message. I mean, I've never been turned off by the Iphone or the PC or the Microwave because they had too many settings. I mean, I can't speak for you, but personally, 5 to 10 functions on a machine isn't confusing to me especially when they are all under the umbrella of "entertainment." It's like getting confused at "movies" because it plays both sound AND video at the same time.