Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Media Entertainment Games

Sony Shifting PS3 Marketing to Focus on Blu-Ray 151

Posted by Zonk
from the facepalm dept.
Tabernaque86 writes "What started as joke among gamers Sony is now using as a Christmas advertising campaign. Kaz Hirai, president of the games unit, has been quoted as saying that the PlayStation 3 'makes a great Blu-Ray player'. That theme will be central to a wave of ads in North America and Europe. From the article: 'Sony on Thursday disappointed analysts by failing to cut the PS3's price, but Mr Hirai did not rule out a future price cut. "Going aggressive only on price without being able to back it up with content doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me," he said. A price cut would have a "real impact" on sales only if there were enough software titles to support the PS3. But analysts were skeptical and said Sony could miss its shipment targets for the year. "Without a price cut close to Christmas, reaching 11m shipments is going to be very tough," said David Gibson, analyst at Macquarie in Tokyo.'" This is regrettable, too, because there really are a number of strong titles coming out for the console this year.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sony Shifting PS3 Marketing to Focus on Blu-Ray

Comments Filter:
  • by Shabbs (11692) on Sunday September 23, 2007 @07:22PM (#20722883)
    Well, it is one of the cheapest Blu-ray players out there, and possibly one of the ONLY ones that is upgradeable to Profile 1.1. All other Profile 1.0 players are most likely not upgradeable. So, while it's not "hi-fi looking" it is not a bad buy if you want a Blu-ray player. You can always fall back on it as a gaming/media platform.

    Cheers.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by KDR_11k (778916)
      The problem with that stance is that the vast majority of the market wouldn't pay much more for a BRD player than a DVD player and realistically the hi-def formats won't become dominant until you can buy a player for ~50$ so going with a HD player isn't a big decision anymore. Even if I had a HDTV I wouldn't pay 10x the price for a movie player just to up the resolution.
      • by donaldm (919619)
        Actually the vast majority of people who do buy a HDTV do want to display movies at the higher resolution and currently the PS3 is one the cheapest and best High Def movie players in the market. Since it also can upscale DVD's as well, your DVD's will look quite good on a HDTV although don't think they are going to look as good as a BD movie, whereas a US$50 DVD player will only play SD to a HDTV set. Personally I would get a HD/DVD recorder rather than a cheap $50 DVD player since it is much more flexible
    • by chrish (4714)
      So, you're saying this is another HD-related bait-and-switch, and that all other Blu-Ray players are going to be "obsolete" when the standard changes?

      That sort of crap has been keeping me far, far away from HD TVs and tuners for ages. It seems every year or two the standards and demands of the media dinosaurs make the existing hardware useless, or require another expensive adaptor of some sort (new tuner, new cables, whatever).

      Guess I'll add another few years to my "ignore this HD stuff" plan so things can
      • by Shabbs (11692)
        The older Blu-ray players (Profile 1.0 ones) won't be able to run the new Profile 1.1 stuff (picture in picture, interactive audio commentary tracks etc...). They *should* be able to play the regular stuff - movie, extras etc... without issue. Then, there's Profile 2.0 after that which adds 'net connectivity. Seems like it was rushed to market. Now, HD DVD has had their act together from the start with a well established feature set, mandatory requirements etc... All HD DVD players already do PiP, 'net conn
  • Strong Titles? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by voidstin (51561) on Sunday September 23, 2007 @07:29PM (#20722919)
    "This is regrettable, too, because there really are a number of strong titles coming out for the console this year."

    Really? In 2007? Like What? Looking at the release dates [ign.com], I don't see a decent exclusive before LittleBigPlanet or Killzone, both of which are in February.
    • Haze. The PC and 360 versions have been shelved at least for awhile. The game should be great since it's made by Free Radical, but with the 360 getting Halo and PC gamers being consumed by UT3 the PS3 is probably the best place for it.

      I know PS3 gets UT3 this fall as well; however, Haze should fair better against it on the PS3 over the PC.

      Swi
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by ILuvRamen (1026668)
      but didn't you read the story saying like 40-something percent of owner didn't know it played blue ray? Hurray for Sony marketing lol.
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by click2005 (921437)
        but didn't you read the story saying like 40-something percent of owner didn't know it played blue ray?

        It does something else besides play overpriced movies?
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Aladrin (926209)
      He didn't say exclusive, he said strong. The PS3 needs -any- good title at this point. I loved DW Gundam, but that's it so far... It's really sad.

      I cancelled my pre-order of Stranglehold because the PS3 demo didn't play as well as the 360 one... The controls felt off, and I'll probably rent the 360 one instead.

      Folklore's demo sucked. I was looking forward to it until I played that.

      Looking forward to Ratchet & Clank and Bladestorm, though I pre-ordered Bladestorm on the 360 before I had my PS3. Mig
    • by p0tat03 (985078)
      Heck, even Killzone has been disappointing. According to all the press out there the game is extremely pretty, and showcases the PS3's processing power, but its gameplay is uninspired and bland. So really, Little Big Planet is going to be the first truly fun game (at least it looks to be fun) with great graphics to boot.
      • (at least it looks to be fun)

        And that's a whole other problem. Heavenly Sword looked awesome back when it was a potential launch title and no one new it was only 6 hours long. I was excited about Warhawk as a launch title as well, but it's been a year and there's no single player. FIFA '08 was half a game, along with some other EA titles. There's still a lot of time between now and LBP's release date for the game to be changed for the worse. I don't even want to think about what might happen to GTA.
        • Re:Strong Titles? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by king-manic (409855) on Monday September 24, 2007 @01:54AM (#20725247)
          Heavenly Sword looked awesome back when it was a potential launch title and no one new it was only 6 hours long.

          I bought it on friday and am about 1/2 -> 2/3 done. It's a good 6h. No filler. I guess you take it as you will. Some 30h games are mostly filler. This is a 6h game that is very good without filler. It's well paced, somewhat difficult. Frustrating but fair. Very polished. But short. IT's been more then 6h right now. I think they mean 6h if your good at god of war. I'm not that good and I keep trying to play it like ninja gaiden so I'm only 2/3 of the way through after about 12h.
    • I've got exactly the same feelings. I've got the money to buy a PS3 - but I find I just haven't. Megadrive/Genesis onwards, I've owned pretty much every console going - some better than others, but there was usually a pretty good reason for each one of them.
      I'm aware of a few PS3 games - the dirt-racing one looks fun... erm.. the FPS with the 3-eyed skull on the front... there's that online thing which is forever delayed....
      Blu-ray movies would be nice, yes, but if I wanted to watch them I'd make a cheapy
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by gravis777 (123605)
      Ratchet and Clank, Call of Duty 4, Medal of Honor, and Unreal all come out before Christmas, according to the post you posted. Are you saying these are not going to be strong titles? I am pretty sure Ratchet and Clank is a PS3 exclusive, and seems to be a successful francise for Sony.
      • Given the direction most of the Sony exclusives I once liked (MGS, Final Fantasy) have gone, I find that Ratchet and Clank is going to be the one game I miss most.

        Not buying a $600 system for 1 game, unfortunately.
      • Really? In 2007? Like What? Looking at the release dates [ign.com], I don't see a decent exclusive before LittleBigPlanet or Killzone, both of which are in February.
        (emphasis mine)

        Only Ratchet & Clank is exclusive, all the other games you mentioned will be on the 360 and PC aswell. But you are right, Ratchet & Clank will be a great exclusive and I'm looking forward to picking up my copy (I own all the Ratchet & Clank PS2 games).

    • October 23, 2007 Ratchet & Clank Future: Tools of Destruction

      If you've never played Going Commando or Up Your Arsenal, you probably wouldn't understand, but R&C is an awesome series. It's got action, comedy, puzzles, tons of weapons and upgrades, gadgets, racing, secrets, space battles, etc... It's got a ton of replay value and I still go back and play the old PS2 versions once in a while. It's the only PS3 game I've been looking forward to this year, all the others are non-exclusive or come
  • The PS3 holds down loose papers like an F-in' CHAMP!
  • by vlad_petric (94134) on Sunday September 23, 2007 @07:44PM (#20723013) Homepage
    ... which are made by developers, developers, developers.

    The main problem with PS3 is not the price, it's the games. There are a few good ones, but certainly not enough. With respect to developers, developers, developers, Sony made a few wrong moves:

    • The CELL is perhaps the most difficult platform to develop for. Instead of a clean SMP interface, they opted for a two-instruction set asymmetric architecture. They took a relatively complex problem—developing for a multi-processor—and made it much, much, worse. I always hear that current generation games don't fully utilize the PS3 ... to which I reply "D'oh, if you only knew what it takes to fully utilize it ... "
    • They did not release proper tools and libraries. Our developers are smart people, we'll let them figure it out ... That worked out well for the PS2, but it certainly doesn't work for PS3
    • Their arrogance (most likely) alienated quite a few developers that'd have produced exclusives.

    Conclusion: bad moves -> few games -> third place as a console

    • by MBCook (132727) <foobarsoft@foobarsoft.com> on Sunday September 23, 2007 @08:11PM (#20723171) Homepage

      It didn't work out very well for the PS2 for quite a while. Games were a bit slow at the start. It took quite a while. The best thing Sony had with the PS2 was the huge demand. Coming off the PS1 (which took Sony from not in the market to #1 by far), developers wanted to be on the PS2. They were willing to put up with the tough times until tools got better and middleware started to appear. I've read things by developers that said that was a HUGE screw-up on Sony's part. If they had tried to pull that with a new console (say the PS2 was their first video game console) they may have failed.

      The XBox had (from what I've heard) fantastic development tools. But that's what you would expect from MS and from someone trying to woo developers. I seem to remember reading that the dev tools for the PS1 were very good and one of the reasons the platform took off as it did (N64 cartridge prices and the Saturn multi-CPU setup being some of the others).

      The PS3 doesn't have the momentum this time. The 360 had a head start. The XBox put up a very good fight in the last generation (relative to how well the Saturn or Dreamcast did). The 360 is simpler to develop for (thanks to the CPU and tools). The PS3 is very expensive (down from incredibly expensive). At $300 tons and tons of people wanted to get a PS2 for their kids. At $600, the PS3 was.. to put it charitably... a little more of a luxury item. Compared to the cheaper and already out 360 and the yet cheaper and innovative Wii... the PS3 didn't have the golden-boy status that the PS2 had.

      The PS3 may end up doing quite well, and may turn out to be the most powerful. But if it does, it will take quite a while to hit it's stride the way the PS2 did.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Osty (16825)

        It didn't work out very well for the PS2 for quite a while. Games were a bit slow at the start. It took quite a while. The best thing Sony had with the PS2 was the huge demand. Coming off the PS1 (which took Sony from not in the market to #1 by far), developers wanted to be on the PS2. They were willing to put up with the tough times until tools got better and middleware started to appear. I've read things by developers that said that was a HUGE screw-up on Sony's part. If they had tried to pull that with a

        • by LWATCDR (28044)
          "the Sony marketing machine had already killed the Dreamcast)"
          A shame really. The Dreamcast was every bit as good as the PS2 and had better development tools. I think the ease of piracy did a lot to kill the Dreamcast.
          • by samkass (174571)
            Yeah, I call shennanigans on Sony's "marketing machine" being the Dreamcast's downfall. As we can plainly see, Sony's "marketing machine" sucks. The PS2 just had tons of mindshare momentum coming off the PS1, a good performance-per-dollar factor, large library of PS1 games it was (mostly) compatible with, and some good exclusive games.

            • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

              by Osty (16825)

              Yeah, I call shennanigans on Sony's "marketing machine" being the Dreamcast's downfall. As we can plainly see, Sony's "marketing machine" sucks. The PS2 just had tons of mindshare momentum coming off the PS1, a good performance-per-dollar factor, large library of PS1 games it was (mostly) compatible with, and some good exclusive games.

              People hadn't yet fully seen how arrogant Sony can be (they were just coming off the successful PS1, and though they promised the world with the PS2 just like they did with t

            • by LKM (227954)
              As far as games go, the Dreamcast had (and still has!) an impressive library of games. Compared to its short lifespan, probably one of the best libraries of any console.
              • by trdrstv (986999)

                As far as games go, the Dreamcast had (and still has!) an impressive library of games. Compared to its short lifespan, probably one of the best libraries of any console.

                Unfortunately, quantity available apparently beats quality available. Last gen the Dreamcast had the highest average game score of all the systems, and the PS2 had the lowest. Actually the market leader generally has the lowest average game score due to the shovelware it attracts.

          • by grumbel (592662)
            The main thing that killed the Dreamcast was that Sega stopped making them *before* XBox and Gamecube hit the shelves. Kind of hard to win a fight when you give up before it has even fully started. EA not supporting the Dreamcast of course kind of helped of course too.
            • by LWATCDR (28044)
              EA not supporting the Dreamcast did really hurt. I tend to forget that because I never buy sports games. I just don't like them so I don't buy them.
        • the Sony marketing machine had already killed the Dreamcast

          It;s much more "SEGAs incompetence machine had already killed the dreamcast". The saturn and the 32x left such a bitter pill in their fanbase that event he really well put together DC wasn't enough to revive their mojo. That along with the ease of pirating, the poor SEGA marketing, and Sony's looming threat is what sunk the DC. I'd place sony as a very small reason.
    • If you give people even more reasons to buy a PS3, then it only helps expand the market which in turn helps Sony maintain developer interest. As the PS2 showed, absolutley none of the items you mentioned mattered to dvelopers really, when the number of consoles is large enough to make it worth their while.
      • by p0tat03 (985078)

        Which is what made the Xbox competitive in the first place. MS knew that developer support and install base are mutually reliant. How did they solve it? By spending oodles of cash and buying enough exclusive first-party titles to jump-start the console. Halo is the most memorable, though not the only one.

        This is what Sony failed to do this generation: they have thus far failed to provide must-have first party titles to the world. As soon as they do they will see sales rise, and developer support follow it

        • Which is what made the Xbox competitive in the first place. MS knew that developer support and install base are mutually reliant. How did they solve it? By spending oodles of cash and buying enough exclusive first-party titles to jump-start the console. Halo is the most memorable, though not the only one.

          It remains to be seen if they did in fact solve that, the 360 also has not sold that well even though it has a lot of great titles. We need to see if the current platform reaches much beyond the ceiling th
          • by trdrstv (986999)

            The PS3 has failed to come through with many great games so far, but they are seemingly it in for the longer haul than Microsoft.

            Sony's in for a[nother] surprise of they think the console war is dictated by their schedule. If they think they can milk the PS3 for 10 years without releasing a follow up they are mistaken.

            • If they think they can milk the PS3 for 10 years without releasing a follow up they are mistaken.

              Why? People are still buying the PS1 and only just recently has the PS2 started to come off the best seller list, with all time sales in the hundreds of millions.

              There's no reason to think they couldn't do the same with the PS3.

              You have the typical short-sighted american mindset to a product that Microsoft does, which is the reason they can't get the XBox sales to the same order of magnitude.
  • I just finished Heavenly sword. If they need to sell more PS3s, build a few more games like that, and you'll take over MS again in no time.

    Good software... good hardware sales. Just got to figure out if you need to make the chicken or the egg first.
    • "Heavenly Sword is, as you will soon discover, the very definition of a rental title. Clocking in at somewhere between five and six hours (depending on your appetite for overwrought cinemas) it's a decent game saddled by impossible expectations. It has silly ideas and grandeur in close proximity to one another." - http://www.penny-arcade.com/2007/09/12 [penny-arcade.com]
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by bigstrat2003 (1058574)
        Tycho, as insightful as he usually is about games, is flat-out wrong on this one. Heavenly Sword is short, but it's such an amazing ride that I, at least, feel it worth it to support the developers who made it. It also is fun to replay, which helps mitigate the shortness somewhat. Tycho's other opinions about the game are just bizarre, imo... he insults the other characters, but picks out Kai, easily the worst character in the game, as the best? How can anyone not enjoy Andy Serkis' over-the-top bad guy per
    • by MMaestro (585010)
      If Heavenly Sword is a killer app, then the Killzone series is the next Half-Life series.

      In all seriousness, the game wasn't received (too) well by most reviewers, professional and casual (too short, lack of gameplay, too easy, nothing but eyecandy: take your pick). The game holds its own as a game, but its by no means a "killer app". I've played through and beat the game in a single day and I kept thinking how much the game felt like a God of War clone whenever I wasn't sniping with the crossbow.

      If you wa

      • Actually from reports I read, casual gamers really liked it because it was a great interactive movie and also kind of short - just the thing hardcore gamers hate.

        The parent post I think is witness of this.
        • by trdrstv (986999)

          Actually from reports I read, casual gamers really liked it because it was a great interactive movie and also kind of short - just the thing hardcore gamers hate.

          The parent post I think is witness of this.

          The issue is that as an "interactive movie" it's overpriced. An interactive movie with little to no replay value would do better priced in the $20-$30 range, not $60.

  • Confused (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Ajehals (947354) <a.halsall@pirateparty.org.uk> on Sunday September 23, 2007 @08:03PM (#20723135) Homepage Journal
    I'm not a gamer and I don't own a console, so I may be missing something but does

    Going aggressive only on price without being able to back it up with content doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me,
    mean what I think it means? i.e. "We are not dropping our prices because we have don't have much content as yet, but when we do have more content we will drop our prices".

    I mean I can see the sense in the fact that more games will drive sales, but I don't see why people would pay more for a console when there are only a few titles* why not drop the price, have people buy it as a blueray player and then *not* drop the price again when the titles are out (after all it will already be as cheap enough as if they dropped the prices when the titles came out). Wouldn't that mean that more people would consider buying the console before the content is available (albeit at a lower price)

    Anyway,makes no sense to me, but as I said I'm not a gamer.

    *I have no real idea how many titles are available for the PS3 or how it stacks up against its rivals, so take that statement at face value rather than assume I am insinuating that the platform is not as good as or worse off than $otherplatform.
    • I mean I can see the sense in the fact that more games will drive sales, but I don't see why people would pay more for a console when there are only a few titles* why not drop the price,

      Because if you sell at a lower price you take a bigger loss on the console which means you need to sell more games (of which there aren't many of) to recoup the loss and actually make a profit.

      That's probably why a blu ray focus makes at least some sense. Producing a reasonable amount of game content is going to take a

      • "Because if you sell at a lower price you take a bigger loss on the console which means you need to sell more games (of which there aren't many of) to recoup the loss and actually make a profit."

        Actually, Sony also gets money from the Blu-Ray sales. Which are moving about as fast as.. something that doesn't move fast at all.
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      Speaking as a gamer - as my handle might imply,
      "A lack of games? Appalling! - and the price is much too high!
      We just got rumble back last Thursday after much outcry.
      We do much love our Sony - Hope this Blu-Ray thing will fly."

      "The games? Well, I'd say they're not that much alike,
      You won't find much FPS on Nintendo's little tyke -
      Unless some Wiimote Metroid or RE4 is what you like.
      And, of course, M$ has got Halo's new Third reich."

      OK, enough verse. My personal philosophy for purchasing a game machine since
    • by ClamIAm (926466)
      Well, Sony executives have been using ridiculous angles to spin the bad points of PS3. I think he's just using the "no games" angle as an excuse, which is rather novel: use bad point A to spin bad point B! It's almost like the universe these guys live in is beginning to collapse on itself.

      I'm not a "Sony is t3h d00med" guy, either. To me, it seems like most nerds on the Internet have forgotten the PS2 launch. It too had Sony execs boasting about their uber-powerful machine (and spewing FUD about MS), an
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by 7Prime (871679)
        Oh, I don't doubt that Sony have a plan. But Microsoft and Nintendo also have plans, and currently, they're already way ahead.

        Sony is already playing catchup against two companies that ALWAYS have tricks on their sleaves. Sony hasn't ever had to pull Aces out of their asses before now, where-as Nintendo, and to a lesser extent, Microsoft, are well versed in the ace-ass-pulling.
        • by hedwards (940851)
          I tend to agree with you here. I don't can't imagine Sony having anything significant to dramatically reveal.

          Consoles tend to be a numbers game, studios want to make money, and so the more potential customers they can have with a system the more likely it is that they'll put there best games on a given console.

          Large numbers of games being sold coincidentally enough has been for quite a while the way that console manufacturers make most of their money.

          In this iteration, all of the consoles, except the Wii I
      • Obviously, things are different this time. The PS3 costs much more (even when adjusted for inflation) than any Sony console to date. The US economy is much worse compared to '95 or 2000. And so on.

        In the US. Adjusted for inflation it's within $50 of the PS2 launch price in Canada, indeed in most markets it's close to the launch PS2 price after inflation, only int he Us is it massively more expensive. I'd chalk it up to bad aim from Sony. They aimed at roughly the same "relative" price as the PS2 but the US
        • by pokerdad (1124121)

          Adjusted for inflation it's within $50 of the PS2 launch price in Canada

          Wow, I didn't believe you so I looked it up. And if you are comparing the cheap PS3 to the PS2, you are correct. According to Wiki the lauch price of the PS2 in Canada was $449.99 compared to $549.99 for the PS3.

          • Wow, I didn't believe you so I looked it up. And if you are comparing the cheap PS3 to the PS2, you are correct. According to Wiki the lauch price of the PS2 in Canada was $449.99 compared to $549.99 for the PS3.

            It sort of puts a different spin on the whole PS3 thing. A lot of geeks have been attributing it to malice/arrogance of Sony. In light of the above information it looks like a more benign bad call by the Sony. They thought they could just do what they did before. Much like shipping the PS2 without a
    • by cowscows (103644)
      It's probably because if they dropped prices right now, sales still wouldn't massively increase because there's no games, and the PS3 would look even more stagnant than it does already.
    • I own a PS3 and it's true, current game selection is pathetic. The only games I plan on buying this year will probably be Ratchet & Clank, Dirt and Assasin's Creed. Of those 3 games, only Ratchet & Clank is a PS3 exclusive. The PS3 won't really start to shine until halfway through 2008 when we have Metal Gear Solid 4, Gran Turismo 5 and Grand Theft Auto 4 (though GTA4 won't be an exclusive).

      It's also an amazing dvd player and media server, but most people tend to care about games the most, and I wou
  • by larry bagina (561269) on Sunday September 23, 2007 @08:23PM (#20723229) Journal
    they ought to advertise linux compatibility. A lot of people are interested in linux but don't want to reformat their computer. Selling a PS3 with ubuntu installed would be pretty popular.
    • "they ought to advertise linux compatibility. A lot of people are interested in linux but don't want to reformat their computer. Selling a PS3 with ubuntu installed would be pretty popular."

      What universe do you live in? Just because on /. there are a bunch of people who are interested in Linux doesn't mean that people in the real world are. Go to a Gamestop and ask random customers if they'd buy a PS3 to run Linux. I guarantee you that the majority of them will ask if it's a new game coming out.
    • Re:but it runs linux (Score:5, Informative)

      by Chandon Seldon (43083) on Sunday September 23, 2007 @08:41PM (#20723339) Homepage

      It runs Linux like crap because it doesn't provide access to hardware accelerated graphics. And by "hardware accelerated graphics", I don't just mean 3D games and Compiz. It doesn't even have 2D acceleration, so you'll see redraw lag just scrolling in Firefox.

      Basically Linux compatibility was just a scheme to get into a different import tax bracket in the European Union (where computers have a lower tax than video game consoles or media players). Actual usability wasn't a design goal.

      • by tlhIngan (30335)

        It runs Linux like crap because it doesn't provide access to hardware accelerated graphics. And by "hardware accelerated graphics", I don't just mean 3D games and Compiz. It doesn't even have 2D acceleration, so you'll see redraw lag just scrolling in Firefox.

        Basically Linux compatibility was just a scheme to get into a different import tax bracket in the European Union (where computers have a lower tax than video game consoles or media players). Actual usability wasn't a design goal.

        Heck, Linux isn't even

        • The tax bracket difference must be pretty huge for Sony to actually design and implement a hypervisor and virtualization system for the PS3 so it can run "Other OS" but not cripple the gaming and security aspects of the PS3.

          There's another less acknowledged reason. A some of the work put into cracking the xbox and 360 consoles was done by people who wanted to run Linux on them, which incidentally helped those running homebrew and piracy.

          By giving the community a half-assed Linux environment, they quickly cut down on the number of people who would work on cracking the PS3. People who want the processing power of the Cell can already use it. People who want to run Linux just because can already do it. That leaves a smaller numb



      • It runs Linux like crap because it doesn't provide access to hardware accelerated graphics. And by "hardware accelerated graphics", I don't just mean 3D games and Compiz. It doesn't even have 2D acceleration, so you'll see redraw lag just scrolling in Firefox.

        Basically Linux compatibility was just a scheme to get into a different import tax bracket in the European Union (where computers have a lower tax than video game consoles or media players). Actual usability wasn't a design goal.


        I assumed you never tri
        • Ubuntu runs fine on mine. I get no lag scrolling with firefox.

          How does it do collapsing / expanding comment threads on digg.com?

          • How does it do collapsing / expanding comment threads on digg.com?

            Didn't' us Geeks abandon digg? Well I never used digg so I don't know.
            • I'm just mentioning Digg because the dynamic comment system is a great test of 2D acceleration in Firefox. When you click "expand thread", it does a little accelerating expansion animation (and animation means drawing a bunch of animation frames).

              I'd actually be really interested to find out how Firefox on the PS3 handles that. It's been my personal test for 2D acceleration quality for a while now.

      • by Trogre (513942)
        Are you sure [ncsu.edu] about [terrasoftsolutions.com] that [stanford.edu]?

        Either you're worryingly ignorant or are trolling, in which case I just bit.

    • by morari (1080535)
      My spare Dreamcast runs Linux. In fact, I had it set up as a simple router there for a while. Still the best overall console I've ever seen.
  • by Dr Cool (671556) on Sunday September 23, 2007 @08:26PM (#20723243) Homepage
    I bought a sweet 47" 1080p LCD TV about a month ago. Of course, I had to get some kind of HD movie source and I don't watch cable TV. I prefer to rent movies. Since Blockbuster is now stocking Blu-Ray movies, it was a natural choice that I choose a Blu-Ray player. I looked around at prices and all the players are fairly expensive. Sony sells a standalone Blu-Ray player for $499. Imagine my surprise when I walked around the Circuit City store and noticed a 60 GB PS3 for... $499! I intended on buying a Blu-Ray player. But I walked out with a PS3. I haven't owned a console game machine since the Nintendo back in the day. And my roommate is the only one who's played games on it so far but I do enjoy watching him play it. So yes, I'm one of the few who bought a PS3 specifically because it's a Blu-Ray player. But I'm sure that if a killer game comes out that I'm dying to play and I know it's not coming out for the PC (my preferred gaming platform), I'll definitely drop $60 on it for my PS3. But for now, it's my HD movie machine.
    • You could have gotten an hd-dvd player for $199 (1080i) or 299 (1080p)....
    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Dr. Kool PhD, is that you?
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Guppy06 (410832)
      "I bought a sweet 47" 1080p LCD TV about a month ago."

      And that's the problem with this new advertising gimmick:

      "PlayStation 3: for people who have cash to blow on 47" 1080p LCD HDTVs."

      Heck, they might get more sales if their slogan was "It still works on SDTVs too!"
    • by toolie (22684)
      The Samsung Blu-Ray (BD-P1200) player has been $449.99 since before the PS3 price cut. Even now the Sony BDP-S300 is $439.57 (on Amazon).
    • by solarlux (610904)
      Similar story here & it was Blockbuster that pushed me to the Blu-Ray side as well. If you sign up for a credit card at Target and get the 10% discount, then the PS3/Blu-Ray player is only $450. If you want an HD player, WiFi connectivity, and on-line membership, PS3 is actually a cheaper deal then the 360.
    • by gravis777 (123605)
      I spent $599 for my 60 gig model. Yeah, I was an early adoptor. It was REALLY hard to justify the price of a PS3 to play next-gen video games only. However, a week before my faithful PS2 bit the dust, and I had quite an investment in PS2 and PSX games. and I wanted a BluRay player. At the time, the cheapest BluRay player was $1000, and the PS2 was still, what, $150. So, I could have payed $1150 for a BluRay Player and a PS2, or get a PS3 that did everything.

      Of course, I am the exception to the rule. I wante
  • ummm (Score:2, Funny)

    by nomadic (141991)
    This is regrettable, too, because there really are a number of strong titles coming out for the console this year.

    Uhhh..and now this marketing plan will somehow prevent those titles from coming out? I don't get it.
  • by Gavin Scott (15916) * on Sunday September 23, 2007 @09:48PM (#20723703)
    ...at least those flames will be beautifully rendered at incredibly high resolution and we'll all go "oooohhhhhh! ahhhhhhhhh!" as it plows into the ground and erupts in a huge fireball.

    G.
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      The PS3 will just sort of sink into the mud. The 360, on the other hand, would explode in a brilliant display of silicon fireworks after the GPU reaches critical heat and collapses into a hunk of raw, fissible uranium.
  • by r_jensen11 (598210) on Sunday September 23, 2007 @10:16PM (#20723837)
    Why the hell would they say that they're going to drop prices November 23rd when it's only September 23rd? That's still two months away. Once you announce a future price cut, sales temporarily slow down until said price cut occurs. Then you see a spike in trading volume, followed by a trailing off toward your new equilibrium.
  • Dudes, in Sony OZ, the US dollar is not at .52 cents.

    If your stupid execs made a bulk purchase of 100000 units at 72cents, then you guys should be FIRED!!

    Any one in the finance industry would tell you the dollar is falling, expect 82-86 average rates.

    I know your real secret Sony Australia, you are protecting your 'buddies' in the HIFI world from not killing their BluRay player market.

    If every BR player is $1200+ and ps3 is sitting there for $699, they would scream murder!

    So Sony..... why is it you can sell
  • What the f...? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by shoptroll (544006) on Monday September 24, 2007 @09:25AM (#20727843)
    Sony, for the love of all that is holy please have your right hand talking to your life hand.

    http://blog.wired.com/games/2007/09/kaz-hirai-plays.html [wired.com]

    Please please please adopt some consistent marketing and executive speak.
  • Having almost every game come out for every system is what is killing the high priced consoles like PS3. While Sony might be wise in trying to advertise the uniqueness of the PS3, they are also driving away gamers in a way as they will not view the PS3 as a console to play games. The Blu-Ray market is far smaller than the gamer market.
    • "The Blu-Ray market is far smaller than the gamer market."

      Do you have any data to back this up?

      The CEA (ce.org) shows 131,902,035 DVD players have been sold in the US alone. This number does not including PCs or game consoles (so, technically, I don't own a DVD player ;)). This is roughly equal to the total worldwide sale of the last generation of game consoles (PS2, GameCube, & XBox).

      *If* Blu-Ray becomes the winner for this format war, the Blu-Ray market could be bigger than games.

  • The reason the PS2 did so well was it was cheaper than most DVD/CD players out at the time.

    So cut the price to $199 and you might be able to sell the PS3.
  • by HunterZ (20035)
    Sony's pushing the PSP as a UMD player turned me off to it; pushing the PS3 as a Blu-Ray player is destroying what little interest I may have had left in the system. Then again, I don't own any current-generation consoles at all, so I'm probably outside of the target demographic.
  • If they really want to promote the BluRay playback then a few things need to be done.

    1) Make sure EVERY unit going out has Firmware version 1.80 or greater so it can scale content.

    2) Include a Remote. (Seriously, when was the last time you bought a TV/VCR/DVD player that didn't come with a remote?)

    3) Promote the Free movies. I know every PS3 is eligible for 5 Free BluRay movies by mail, but that should be printed on the box, along with pictures of the titles.

    4) Include HDMI cables. Granted, not all HD

Someone is unenthusiastic about your work.

Working...