SCEE President: Sony Needs To "Suffer"

[Simriel]

All the games i want? Not being fanboy here. BUT I WANT GEARS OF WAR! Answer that one sony guy.

 

[ChromeAlchemist]

Sony's strategy might work if anyone actually cared about the blue-ray format.... i've got a friend who's a major film buff and owns a PS3 and do you know how many blue-ray movies he owns? two! that's it! most consumers are simply unwilling to pay the high price blue-ray movies are going for when the difference isn't very noticable...

Ding! We have a winner!

Also there's the fact that HD televisions are still not the dominant television format just about anywhere as far as I can see. I myself do not have HD-TV, and I know only a few people who do.

And none of them have a PS3 which can only lead me to believe that they don't need Blu-Ray that badly.

Which is a damn shame considering the predicted lifespan for Blu-Ray is 5 years...

But chances are it will turn out fine for them. Their business strategy was as clear as day from day one to be honest, but on the flipside to this it is a different kind of climate from the PS2. The PS2 had no competitors upon release(besides Dreamcast, which was savaged into oblivion) and the PS3 had two, one of which had two years in the market before it.

Actually thinking about it Blu Ray altogether may well have been a bad shout. And don't even get me started on the need for it in gaming...

 

[Aries_Split]

I've looked at the ps3's stuff, and I rather like the way it looks. The dashboard UI alone has a very calming feel to it, unfortunatley it doesn't have the huge game selection I want. Even for the games I do want that are on it I can easily just buy them for 360.

Sadly though I will be buying in the far future when god of war 3 comes out....rat bastards making it a ps3 exclusive. One can only hope they will have a change of heart and give 360 a slice of the pie so I don't waste money on a system for one game....

EDIT Yes, I'm a diehard GoW fanboy

So Sony Computer Entertainment Santa Monica (the people who make the series) should give a game whose rights Sony owns completely to the 360, despite the fact that it would mean doubling their workload or signifigantly scaling back their ambition?

You realize that the 360 and PS3 are even in terms of power

No, no they're not. You need proof? Lets take another look at Killzone 2. While they may have been similar in terms of output before, now we are seeing the difference - remember that Killzone 2 is barely over half of its possible power, and beats the crap out of the full capabilities of the 360 (based on quotes from Guerilla and Epic, respectively).

If Santa Monica wanted to really make the best game possible, they would make it on a PC. There is no argument to this,

Yes, yes there is. The game is an action heavy hack and slash, the best of its kind bar none. This does not now, nor will ever, belong on a PC - it is purely console territory, requiring a controller over a keyboard to better pull off combos, sticks over a mouse for character direction and rolls, and a couch to sit on.

If only there was a place to plug in a controller...

And Indigo, no matter what Sony is telling you, look at the HARDWARE. The PS3 is running on the equivalent of a 7800GTX Ultra, they even share the same chip set. The 360 is running on just about the same thing. Look at Gears of War 2, it looks just as good as Killzone, both of which are demolished by something like Crysis.

Epic say that Gears of War 2 was the full extent of the 360's capabilities. Guerilla say that Killzone 2 uses 60% of the Ps3's GPU. Reviewers say that Killzone 2 makes Gears of War II look like crap. Either they're all lying, or you, a random poster on the internet, are incorrect.

And no, we're not discussing peripherals, we're looking at it with the PC using a mouse and keyboard - designing a game around the assumption that the consumer base will buy a peripheral they won't need again is bad form to begin with. (Yes, there are exceptions, however these are for the purpose of immersion and fantasy fulfillment - a controller doesn't feel sufficiently like the blades to make it practical in that sense, and a controller that looks like said blades wouold be highly impractical)

Alright, I'll concede. The 360 is less powerful than a PS3, but a Mid Range Gaming PC will demolish either of them. Also, the thing about the periphials? Rock Band.

Why do you think I said exceptions for the purpose of fantasy fulfillment? Holding the sticks, the mic, the axe, you feel like a Rock God - you don't get the same effect when you hold a controller. You get it when you use the controller well, but at that point its the games success and not the controllers.

And no, not mid range. I concede, as I have many times that Crysis looks better than Killzone 2 - however, you are severely overestimating the quality difference. You act as if to compare the two is comparing cave drawings to a digital photo, I say its the difference between an amateur digital photographer and and a professionals in a world occupied mainly by cameraphones (yes, I know that that metaphor was incredibly bad, but you get my point, and at the moment I really can't think of a better one).

I'll agree with that.

That you keep overestimating the quality difference? Or that the analogy was shit?

Both.

 

[Wyatt]

Please explain to me how those extra things come at a price?

hmmm, well try this. Sony themselves have said that the hardware of the Blu-ray player in the PS3 added $200+ to its price tag over a simple DVD player like the X-Box uses. so while your right, i dont need too buy movies and USE that blu-ray player , im still PAYING for the hardware when i buy the PS3 wether i use it or not. same things with all the other things that are stuffed into the box that arent REQUIRED to play games with. now im sure you will make the argument taht the Blu-ray is required to play games on the PS3, ill just say tahts because they designed it that way to push their conversion too the blu-ray system. they COULD have used a DVD and been no worse off and ALOT cheaper on top of it. after all x-box is doing fine sans blu-ray, and doesnt the WII still use floppy disks or something *snicker*

Please, Blu-Ray is not going to go under. All movies are now being created with Blu-Ray formats now, as universally all production companies have accepted Blu-Ray, it's only a matter of TIME. Just because we live in a world of "right now" doesn't mean that's how it's going to work. Where's my hover car? Plus, who said you HAVE to buy all your old movies on Blu-Ray? Keep your DVD player! I still have a VHS and use it to play Pearl Harbor. I still use my PS2 to play hits like FFX and Jak.

no one said that blu-ray was going under, but on the other hand its not taking off like a rocket like DVDs did either. im 37, i recall the betamax/VHS wars, i also recall the tape to CD transitions and the tape to DVD transitions. ive seen this before and Blu-ray may be the future but far from being embraced we are being draged kicking and screaming too it, fighting every step of the way. you can only hype a pile of shit just so much before people relize that the Emperor IS naked, and that Blu-ray is shit for its price and NOT worth the cost to upgrade. well except maybe for people with more money than brains.

Wow. Just wow.
Cars are expensive, wouldn't it just be better if they just y'know, sold it without the engine? Hey, You could save a couple of grand that way.

I can see this is pointless, because you don't want a PS3 in the first place, but can you understand that Sony are, and always have been going for a long term market strategy this generation. They never intended to dominate the market in the first year, even in the first five years. They planned for all this. Yes, they are doing worse in terms of sales than they predicted, but its nowhere enough to make them collapse and die, Sega style.

Do you even remember the Gamecube? Yeah Nintendo's never recovered after that faux pas.

i didnt say sony was dieing. im not anti sony, i LOVED the PS1 best consol i ever bought and i started in the Atari 2600 era. but they fucked the pooch BIG time with the cost of the PS3 and this obvious money grab to try and force the Blu-ray format on everyone isnt setting very well either.

your right i wont be buying a PS3, but rather than that being used as some kind of negative thing and an excuse to brush off my opinon i say its more importiant than ever to listen to it. i dont have a dog in this fight, im not a fan of ANY consol but as things sit now if i WAS to chose a consol id go with the X-box, it offers the kinds of games i want to play at a reasonable price. if price was NO issue .... i wouldnt snear at the play station. id have to take a close look at the games line up before i decided but i was extreamly happy with Sony years ago so it would be a toss up.

im NOT anti-sony im anti stupidity. and stuffing unwanted hardware 'upgrades' into a games consol and charging $200+ more than the other guys for a freaking GAMES consol was a bone headed thing to do. if you want a more accurate example using a car, it would be like stuffing a jet engine into mini-van and saying its a hell of a deal because it can take your kids to soccer practice at 700 MPH and that the price tage of $250,000 more than the next closest mini-van on the market is no big deal because after all "DeWd ItS TeH JeTs mann 11!!1!1"

 

[Jumplion]

Please explain to me how those extra things come at a price?

hmmm, well try this. Sony themselves have said that the hardware of the Blu-ray player in the PS3 added $200+ to its price tag over a simple DVD player like the X-Box uses. so while your right, i dont need too buy movies and USE that blu-ray player , im still PAYING for the hardware when i buy the PS3 wether i use it or not. same things with all the other things that are stuffed into the box that arent REQUIRED to play games with. now im sure you will make the argument taht the Blu-ray is required to play games on the PS3, ill just say tahts because they designed it that way to push their conversion too the blu-ray system. they COULD have used a DVD and been no worse off and ALOT cheaper on top of it. after all x-box is doing fine sans blu-ray, and doesnt the WII still use floppy disks or something *snicker*

Snicker? Boy, you need to realize that nobody "wins" arguments on teh internetz. It's like participating in the special Olympics, even if you win you're still a retard.

But anyway, you do realize that the PS3 is severely under priced considering that they lose money for every console sold? Whether or not you pay extra for it doesn't matter since the extra you pay for it is minuscule compared to full priced Blu-ray players. Most of the extra price comes from the Cell (which I believe used to cost over $400 to make, though don't quote me on that) and while it the blu-ray did jack up the price a bit, even if you don't use it it's still not that much extra you're paying for a Blu-ray player.

Most of what you pay goes to a games console believe it or not.

 

[Brett Alex]

Please explain to me how those extra things come at a price?

hmmm, well try this. they COULD have used a DVD and been no worse off and ALOT cheaper on top of it. after all x-box is doing fine sans blu-ray, and doesnt the WII still use floppy disks or something *snicker*

Most of what you pay goes to a games console believe it or not.

That, plus what you seem to be missing Wyatt, is the fact that without the Blu-Ray player, the PS3 would lose its main selling point as well some of its biggest single console franchises.

The data that makes games like MGS4 and Killzone 2 work does not fit on a non-blu-ray disc.

They take out the blu-ray player, and not only do they lose what sets them apart from an xbox, but they lose their exclusives.

Are you honestly saying that if the PS3 was a $200 cheaper, dodgy 360 clone with less titles that you would buy it?

 

[Wyatt]

Snicker? Boy, you need to realize that nobody "wins" arguments on teh internetz. It's like participating in the special Olympics, even if you win you're still a retard.

But anyway, you do realize that the PS3 is severely under priced considering that they lose money for every console sold? Whether or not you pay extra for it doesn't matter since the extra you pay for it is minuscule compared to full priced Blu-ray players. Most of the extra price comes from the Cell (which I believe used to cost over $400 to make, though don't quote me on that) and while it the blu-ray did jack up the price a bit, even if you don't use it it's still not that much extra you're paying for a Blu-ray player.

Most of what you pay goes to a games console believe it or not.

this reminds me of an argument that i once had with a local cable company. this guy calles me at 6 o'clock at night and starts out the conversation telling me i can 'save' $30 a month if i sign up for cable TV to go with my internet connection.

let me make clear too you my situation. i have an antenna i get all the TV stations i want or use for free. so anyhow after this guy tells me how much i can 'save' i ask him , how is it 'saving' me money to pay $30 MORE a month for a service im not going to use anyhow? the guy seriously didnt understand my question and insisted that if i paid full price for cable TV and internet it would cost $100 a month but by his 'deal' it would only cost me $70 so i was SAVING $30 a month. i of corse said listen , my bill is $50 a month now, you want me to pay ANOTHER $20 on top of that for something i dont want or need where i come from thats not SAVING anything that wasting $20.

now translate that too a blu-ray player. your argument is i get a blu-ray player with the PS3 at a 'cheap' price when compaired to what i would pay for a stand alone player. and IM telling you i dont want a blu-ray player at ALL at ANY price, so its not SAVING me anything. i MIGHT want a PS3 if i didnt have to pay $200 extra for it because it includes the blu-ray i DONT WANT. but it DOES include that blu-ray player and that cost jacks up the base price of a PS3 by $200 so i AM paying for hardware i dont want and its not SAVING me anything.

Whether or not i pay extra for it DOES matter, and its not a minuscule difference, because on a $600 console the blu-ray is $200 of that price. thats 1/3 and it really truly IS the single BIGGEST difference in whether or not people will buy that consol, the PS3 would have been snapped up at a $400 range and would prolly have won the fight with X-box if not the WII but by making it 1/3 higher cost than its next closest compitition it just cut its own throat. the blu-ray was a feasco of epic nature. its not at ALL needed to make a great games console and it raised the price by a not minuscule percentage but in fact raised it by 1/3 of the entire system so it not only isnt saving us anything its in fact a stone around sonys neck that they will be a loooooong time recovering from.

ohh and the snicker was the for the floppy disk for the WII joke i made, but if we are in fact compeating in the 'special olympics' ill just point out that your doing a semi-good job in staying in the race so far. and if its true as you say that even if you 'win your still retarded' i cant help but think that id rather be a winning retard than just a retard who lost.

That, plus what you seem to be missing Wyatt, is the fact that without the Blu-Ray player, the PS3 would lose its main selling point as well some of its biggest single console franchises.

The data that makes games like MGS4 and Killzone 2 work does not fit on a non-blu-ray disc.

They take out the blu-ray player, and not only do they lose what sets them apart from an xbox, but they lose their exclusives.

Are you honestly saying that if the PS3 was a $200 cheaper, dodgy 360 clone with less titles that you would buy it?

you seem to be missing that what you call a 'main selling point' is in fact the main point that is causing the PS3 not to sell at ALL. yes i would very much concider buying a 'x-box clone' if it was in the $400 price range, but im certianly NOT going to pay an extra $200 for a blu-ray player i dont want and wont use. its a 'selling point' for people with more money than brains for those of us that just want a games console its a waste of cash. there will allways be idiots out there that want to put hubcaps on a golf cart and brag about how 'cool' it is, but the cast majority of people just shake their heads and laugh at the stupidity of that person.

sony didnt/doesnt/wont ever need a blu-ray player to make a great console, if games they have made now wont work without the blu-ray that is because they were designed for the blu-ray, if the blu-ray wasnt invovled with the PS3 from start than the games would be designed to work on a regular old DVD. they is almost NO difference between X-Box title and PS3 titles in terms of quality. and in fact from a simple "look at them and judge for yourself' point of view there isnt ANY difference. its all in the numbers that are meaningless.

what i mean by that is like this. take frames per second debate. the human eye cant see any more than about 35 FPS so anything higher than that is wasted. it might SOUND importiant or impressive to say i can get 95 FPS in counter strike but if you sat down and played the game on a machine that got only 40 FPS you wouldnt know the difference.

your whole argument is that the games made NOW wont play on anything but a blu-ray and im saying that far from being a 'selling point' it just adds to what i see as a totaly retarded move by Sony by trying to force a blu-ray conversion in the first place. of CORSe they wont play on anything but a blu-ray, they were MADE to work on a blu-ray, but that doesnt change one jot or tittle the fact that if sony had used a DVD instead than those smae games would have been made to work on a DVD with no real loss of quality and it would be one fuck of alot cheaper to make and the console would have been one fuck of alot cheaper to BUY. instead we have a tech no one but nerds could possable want at an added cost of 1/3 the base price of a equivilent system, and whole groups of developers just not making their games compatable with the PS3 because of it is a good idea?.

all im saying really is think about it. im an 'average joe' customer. these are my points/issues. they are a very common points ive seen repeated more than once all over the net so its not like im being unreasonable in what i say. in this thread alone its full of people saying "PS3 costs too much and the blu-ray is soemthing i dont want/need"

im not trashing the PS3, im not trashing anyone who bought one, all im 'trashing' if anything is the stupid idea to even include it to begin with. jumplion thinks is a hell of a deal and im 'saving' money for paying for something i dont want or need, YOU think that blu-ray actualy adds something of value because of a few 'exclusive' games, while i contend that those games would have been made anyhow both cheaper and easier using the DVD format , with no OBVIOUS loss of quality and on top of it a whole slew of developers who give the PS3 a pass becuse the Blu-ray is too hard/complicaed to develope for WOULD be porting/making games for the PS3 if it used DVD hardware is NOT a selling point but rather a crushing mill-stone around Sonys neck.

in the end though the sales numbers speak louder than anything we are saying here. your arguments all come down to its a 'great deal for the price' at this point you sound like used car sale's men trying to convice a wary public that that 84 yugo with 600,000 miles on it is a GREAT deal for $2000 because it will make a nice planter for your spice garden. in the real world .......... the REAL world, its obvious people are voting with their wallets and that vote is against the PS3. i cant tell you what the problem is for the millions of people who arent buying one, but i CAN tell you what MY problem with it is. and being an 'average joe' it might be worth the effort to listen too what im saying.

all the things that you two have listed as 'selling points' the rest of the world looks on as a deal breakers.

 

[Brett Alex]

all the things that you two have listed as 'selling points' the rest of the world looks on as a deal breakers.

...did... did you read the article? Did you even read the article that sparked this debate?

If not, good to see you asked everyone in the world.

 

[Jumplion]

Snicker? Boy, you need to realize that nobody "wins" arguments on teh internetz. It's like participating in the special Olympics, even if you win you're still a retard.

But anyway, you do realize that the PS3 is severely under priced considering that they lose money for every console sold? Whether or not you pay extra for it doesn't matter since the extra you pay for it is minuscule compared to full priced Blu-ray players. Most of the extra price comes from the Cell (which I believe used to cost over $400 to make, though don't quote me on that) and while it the blu-ray did jack up the price a bit, even if you don't use it it's still not that much extra you're paying for a Blu-ray player.

Most of what you pay goes to a games console believe it or not.

this reminds me of an argument that i once had with a local cable company. this guy calles me at 6 o'clock at night and starts out the conversation telling me i can 'save' $30 a month if i sign up for cable TV to go with my internet connection.

let me make clear too you my situation. i have an antenna i get all the TV stations i want or use for free. so anyhow after this guy tells me how much i can 'save' i ask him , how is it 'saving' me money to pay $30 MORE a month for a service im not going to use anyhow? the guy seriously didnt understand my question and insisted that if i paid full price for cable TV and internet it would cost $100 a month but by his 'deal' it would only cost me $70 so i was SAVING $30 a month. i of corse said listen , my bill is $50 a month now, you want me to pay ANOTHER $20 on top of that for something i dont want or need where i come from thats not SAVING anything that wasting $20.

Umm, actually I think he was advertising that to you because in a couple of months, all Antenna TVs will be put out of service.

I can't recall the act, but in a few months to be sure all Antenna TV signals will be wiped and everyone with those kinds of TVs have to upgrade to cable or something similar.

I can't remember exactly what it's called, but I know it's out there. Just incase you didn't know about that.

 

[TsunamiWombat]

-snip-

Don't taunt the PS3 fanboys you fool! The Male will become enraged and maul you with his fearsome gonad!

 

[Jumplion]

-snip-

Don't taunt the PS3 fanboys you fool! The Male will become enraged and maul you with his fearsome gonad!

RAFLE SNAFLE!

On the side, I'm hurt Tsunny. You make fanboy shed a tear :'(

 

[TsunamiWombat]

-snip-

Don't taunt the PS3 fanboys you fool! The Male will become enraged and maul you with his fearsome gonad!

RAFLE SNAFLE!

On the side, I'm hurt Tsunny. You make fanboy shed a tear :'(

Hurt? I just said you have fearsome gonads!

 

[Jumplion]

-snip-

Don't taunt the PS3 fanboys you fool! The Male will become enraged and maul you with his fearsome gonad!

RAFLE SNAFLE!

On the side, I'm hurt Tsunny. You make fanboy shed a tear :'(

Hurt? I just said you have fearsome gonads!

Well now I don't know how to feel.

 

[TsunamiWombat]

-snip-

Don't taunt the PS3 fanboys you fool! The Male will become enraged and maul you with his fearsome gonad!

RAFLE SNAFLE!

On the side, I'm hurt Tsunny. You make fanboy shed a tear :'(

Hurt? I just said you have fearsome gonads!

Well now I don't know how to feel.

Like you have dangerous gonads.

Look, PS3 is great, yay for you. You can stop defending it if I get to stop defending the 360. IE, we all stop being 'tards and attacking each others consoles.

Now... I want to see... suffering...

 

[Wyatt]

...did... did you read the article? Did you even read the article that sparked this debate?

If not, good to see you asked everyone in the world.

yeah i did especialy the part when it said

"It was a rough Christmas for Sony. The company ate a loss of almost $200 million in the third quarter, and sales of both the PlayStation 3 and PSP were down. Sony's game division income dropped by a staggering 97 percent in the quarter, and the company that once dominated the market with the PlayStation 2 now finds itself buried in third place in the three-way console wars."

i suppose that it was just long lines at the electronic stores or a lack of inventory that caused this epic fail for the PS3?

im pretty sure outside of being able too actualy wander around the planet asking people why they didnt buy a PS3 this past year that i can look at Sonys OWN statments for a clue as too why their PS3 business is failing.

its not because the hardware doesnt work.

its not because there isnt exclusive titles for it

its not a general lack of games

its not because Sony or the playstation brand itself is unknown or untested.

whats left? why id say its nothing but the COST of the machine. and what makes the wonder machine so much more expecive than its closest compition? why i do belive its the blu-ray. hmm....., nope i didnt actualy ask the 'world' then again ive got this thing on top of my body, its called a head, and inside it there is something called a brain, and if you actualy put that brain to work you can do something thats called thinking. if you try it you may be supprised at the things you can you can eventualy understand about the mystical magical world all around you. things like ........ ohhh, i dunnow, the easy to understand concept that the PS3 is WAY overpriced and thats a drag on sails leading Sony to say that it 'needs to suffer a bit' . in case you dont speak business languages thats code for "WOW did we fuck up on THIS one".

Umm, actually I think he was advertising that to you because in a couple of months, all Antenna TVs will be put out of service.

I can't recall the act, but in a few months to be sure all Antenna TV signals will be wiped and everyone with those kinds of TVs have to upgrade to cable or something similar.

I can't remember exactly what it's called, but I know it's out there. Just incase you didn't know about that.

first let me ask if you understood my point about how its NOT 'saving' money if you have to pay more? you got that? good.

now let me say that he didnt call becuse of the antenna switch, how the hell would this caller know that i even used an antenna in the first place? do you think my local cable company has spys sneaking into my house checking out my TV setup when im at work or something?

i get calls from my cable company all the time because i DO have internet and im sure my name pops up in their "call and fucking bug them to death trying to sell them something MORE " list. i get a call from them as regular as clock work every 3 months, i can usualy pin it down to within a day of when i will get that call asking me if i want TV and phone added to by bill so 'save' me more money. this isnt related to the antenna switch and certianly isnt related to the point i was making about how costing me more cash out of my wallet paying for something i dont want or need isnt SAVING me anything. its only a saving when i was actualy gunna buy it in the first place. back on topic for a mo,ment, blu-ray players in the PS3 might BE a nice deal if your in the market for Blu-ray. most people arent so charging THOSE people extra for it isnt SAVING them anything.


and in case your worried about my surviving the DTV antenna switch i thank you for pointing this out too me (not being sarcastic at all either) but with the year of constiant spam on all the broadcast stations about the switch coming in a few weeks (though thats been moved back (kinda) by congress to sometime in june or July, in any event im ready for it, i got my converter box i got my $40 rebate/coupon and everything is hooked up and GTG.

-snip-

Don't taunt the PS3 fanboys you fool! The Male will become enraged and maul you with his fearsome gonad!

RAFLE SNAFLE!

On the side, I'm hurt Tsunny. You make fanboy shed a tear :'(

Hurt? I just said you have fearsome gonads!

Well now I don't know how to feel.

Like you have dangerous gonads.

Look, PS3 is great, yay for you. You can stop defending it if I get to stop defending the 360. IE, we all stop being 'tards and attacking each others consoles.

Now... I want to see... suffering...

i seldom actualy laugh right the fuck out loud at things i read in forums. that whole exchange did it for me though.

"Hurt? I just said you have fearsome gonads!" ......... *wipes a tear* that was classic.

as to them being 'fan boys' i dont get that vibe, really. though my vib-o-meter may be not working in this case. i think its a kinda interesting chat. we arent really arguing over the PS3 after all, just the blu-ray disaster. though now that you have really pointed it out to me Armitage Shanks IS starting to sound a lil fannish.

 

[Kiutu]

I like this guy, he should be president of all of Sony, instead of that egotistical jerk who currently is.

 

[PhoenixFlame]

[quote post="7.86846.1294285"]
"Look at the capability of the machines," he said when asked how Sony justified keeping the price so high during a worldwide economic meltdown. "With PS3, you can go online for free, it's got all the games you want, it's got a Blu-ray drive so you don't need a new player, you can store photos on it, and you've got Home [http://playstationhome.com/]. Admittedly, in the current climate, more people will go for the lower price, but we still make a profit and that is our objective." [/quote]

As a PS3 owner myself I think part of the blame, putting the economy aside, is simply the lack of marketing, or the lack of marketing direction. So the PS3 is touted as the "complete multimedia solution". But it's not in the eye of the public enough as such in order to really do that. Highlight the Blu-Ray player, the HD space, the strong digital delivery model. Talk about how it can be used as a puzzle piece in a complete entertainment suite in someone's living room.

If the PS3 really is something "more" than just a video game console, it needs to be showcased as such. Even the game campaign has been lackluster as opposed to previous years, while the Wii practically sells itself and the XBox has cornered the usual places in terms of pimping its marquee titles. Meanwhile, with a few exceptions, Sony is left out in the cold.

I just think that if people actually saw or knew what the PS3 was capable of as an entertainment device and not just a game playing device, that maybe more consoles would be moved by people outside of the target demographic. As for us gamers, it's a bit more bleak, as there have been a number of titles that have not moved the console numbers expected by Sony (with the notable exception of Metal Gear Solid 4). This, combined with the hugely insane price point, make buying a PS3 unappealing.

There are other reasons, like my feeling that resources spent on something too meta for its own good (Home) should be spent on better online tools and widgets, but this wall of text is long enough. In short, I'm a bit ambivalent about Sony's PS3 future, but am hopeful that the long-term life of the system will carry it forward as more years pass.

 

[Jumplion]

and in case your worried about my surviving the DTV antenna switch i thank you for pointing this out too me (not being sarcastic at all either) but with the year of constiant spam on all the broadcast stations about the switch coming in a few weeks (though thats been moved back (kinda) by congress to sometime in june or July, in any event im ready for it, i got my converter box i got my $40 rebate/coupon and everything is hooked up and GTG.

DTV SWITCH! That's what it was called.

But anyway, quite frank I don't feel like continuing this debate, it bores me. Agree to disagree?