PS3 marketing shifts focus to 'total entertainment solution'

Considering the PS3's the PS3's production costs were so high they actually lost money with every sale? Yes.

Me and my typos.

My typos and I. God DAMN IT.

"Sony feels Americans care more about non-gaming capabilities now than ever before."

Right. That's clearly why the Wii is blowing the doors off the competition this generation. Who cares about the games?!?!?


/sarcasm

In defense of SONY the last two ads are pretty great and they focus of a PS3 as a whole entertainment solution highlighting its gaming and online capabilities.

And for the first time the ads are pretty funny as well.

"Who cares about the games?!?!?"

That's what I ask too when I think about the Wii.

i dunno. let 360 zealots tell it most of PS3's current install base comes from people who bought it as a Blu-ray player. if Sony can sell upwards of 25 million $500-$600 Blu-ray players, just imagine how many they can sell at $300.

for the record i never agreed with that "I only use my PS3 as a Blu-ray player" sentiment. only someone who totally hates games (ya know, the Valkyria Chronicles and Uncharteds and inFamous' and MGS4s etc.) would say something like that. i'll let Sony worry about the marketing; so long as they keep delivering the goods (games).

@Blank-Mage
"Me and my typos."

"My typos and I. God DAMN IT."

Actually I think you were right the first time. It's not always "and I". Basically if you remove the "and whatever"/"whatever and" and the sentence still makes sence then it's correct. Anyway, this is *slightly* off topic so I'll shut up now.

@Alphathon:

They're both "wrong" in that they're sentence fragments. Neither is more correct than the other, because each phrase could be correct in a given context.

"Me and my typos" would be sufficient as a direct/indirect object or object of preposition, whereas "My typos and I" would be sufficient as a compound subject or predicate nominative. i.e:

What's wrong with me and my typos?
My typos and I have problems.

If I recall correctly...

They should promote the Playstation Eye and the fact that you could easily set up a live video chat with your parents if you both have one

So far that's one of the most impressive things about the PS3, the 360 about matches it in gaming capabilities, my $1300 brand new PC has more raw computing power, and I don't really care about high definition video. but until now there hasn't been a video conferencing system easy enough for my parents to use

"Sentence fragment is also a sentence fragment."

Lisa Simpson to Linguo, the grammar robot

the general public doesn't want a blu ray player.
they(we) already have $ 20 DVD players that play movies just fine.
they don't want to spend more than that on 1 blu ray movie to watch.
they want a cheap gaming machine.

total entertainment and capabilities have been what i feel has hindered ps3 success thus far by not promoting and worrying about the games as much.
any recent ps3 success i feel has been because of the games released and the continuing release of more exclusive games has been making more and more people want to play on the ps3 console.
its always about the games when it comes to a gaming console.
all the other stuff is just extra's.
(IMO)

I have to actually agree with some of what he says, at least about media. It may not have PS2 compatibility, but I use it so much for recording TV (in the UK) and putting torrented films/TV shows on there, since it basically works like a little computer in my living room. Also, it makes 700MBish movies look amazing on my SDTV.

True. But it also isn't $300.

I've got my 60GB since launch and let me tell you man, BC is useless. I've only tried playing God of War 1 and 2 and I just stopped playing after 10min, why? well....because it was not full screen on my LCD and even though was upscaled you could see the pixels. I prefer have a ps2 for ps2 games and a ps3 for total entertainment.

I've got my 60GB since launch and let me tell you man, BC is useless. I've only tried playing God of War 1 and 2 and I just stopped playing after 10min, why? well....because it was not full screen on my LCD and even though was upscaled you could see the pixels. I prefer have a ps2 for ps2 games and a ps3 for total entertainment.

they also removed SACD support, not that many miss it. But they should fix some of the issues with Xvid and add support for MKV to be a TOTAL solution.

I've since beat God of War 2, FFX, and Dragon Quest 8 on my PS3. There are moments in releases where you hit that lull, have nothing new to play, and need some nostalgia. And unless you like having a ton of systems hooked up all at once, then far be it for me to request convenience. Plus, I like having a backup to the PS2 since it's known for having faulty lasers.

Aha... Hahahahaha..... hahahahahaha... LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Yeah, that was a pretty bad troll.

Anyway, I use an old 80gb, and I never really play my PS2 games on it. I did play some PS1 games, though, which is available to play on all systems... I think. >_> It's not a bad thing to not have a PS2. If you own PS2 games, you probably owned a PS2. Dust it off and play it! It'll look better using the original system anyway.

Leave it to "the Chief" to think something isnt complete if HE isnt in it.....Guess Halo 3: ODST without you will be full of fail huh??

+1

"I loves mah sixteh gig...loves mah sixteh..."

@m3nphls: So you mean, you're disappointed in the fact that the PS3 didn't just stretch the picture across your TV screen which would have made the picture quality worse, then complaining that because of the HD output, your Playstation 2 titles, which were created on a less powerful machine, for Standard Definition through SCART or RGB cables look worse because the flaws in the visuals are highlighted more?

You may also want to look up what upscaling means:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upscaling

Why would they want to let you play your old ps2 games on your ps3 if you can buy them on psn? Who cares about happy costumers? -.-'

Backwards compatability is a nice feature but it's not that important, and definitely not a deal breaker. If it was that important everyone here that "needed' it would have invested in a BC compatible system.

The average consumer probably doesn't even know that it use to be backward compatible in the first place. Also the average consumer doesn't have a backlog of about 50 PS2 games. If they do have PS2 games it's probably stuff that like an old Madden a couple of God of Wars etc. which all have been remade or are being remade for the PS3. Why would they want to play last gen games on their next gen system?

People who live, sleep, and breathe video games are going to think backwards compatability is a big deal and thats fine, you have an argument. Whats stupid is trying to convince some who may have a few PS2 games not to buy a PS3 because it can't play those few old PS2 games.

Well, I'm glad I'm not trying to convince anyone not to buy a PS3. But I do find it ridiculous that Sony has made roughly 7 different PS3's only to come to a conclusion that gutting the original more and more is the continued solution for a better system. All I see is the system getting worse and worse with no actual improvements. It's a shameful practice really. Xbox 360's for instance get more appealing with each new release, with the subsequent removal of RRoD's via better chips and cooling and more capacity. Even Sony's PSP Go has been a mess among gamers by not having a UMD slot or second joystick nub. It really makes you question what idiot runs Sony's gaming division. I understand they're trying to be competitive to the 360 by getting the price down, but when the target market for Sony are gamers, we know better as you said yourself. We know they're continually gimping the product instead of improving it.

@m3nphls ummmm God of War 2 does Support Widescreen...I playthru it once a month on "spartan"

Such a great game.

" Xbox 360's for instance get more appealing with each new release, with the subsequent removal of RRoD's via better chips and cooling and more capacity."

But this argument is based on the fact that 360's had an enormous quality issue that the PS3 don't have and on the fact that the 360 uses a proprietary HDD scheme. Those don't seem like a very fair arguments to make against the PS3. The newer PS3 models, just like the newer 360s, have cooler running chips, use much less power, are quieter (even though all models are quieter than any 360 model), and any model has always had upgradeable storage... plus some, like the 360, have had models with more storage built-in.

I'm not trying to argue against the PS3. I just find it very odd that NEW models aren't showing improvements, whereas say, the 360's new models do show improvements. I have been trained as a consumer to assume that new should equate to better, not worse, or less, or diminished. If for instance Sony gave me the choice today would I want the PS3 of 2007 with all the bells and whistles, or the PS3 Slim, I'd choose the first PS3. That goes triple for the PSP Go, wouldn't want that thing, ever, my PSP 2000 does everything the Go can do with a 16GB memory card. How is the Go an improvement? It isn't, simple answer. How is the Slim an improvement? Uses less power, is marginally smaller/ligher? I wouldn't call those improvements from a gaming perspective in any way.

"How is the Slim an improvement? Uses less power, is marginally smaller/ligher? I wouldn't call those improvements from a gaming perspective in any way."

So basically your entire argument is based on BC then? Because that's basically the only area where they're arguably taken a step backwards. Yet your pro-360 examples have nothing to do directly with gaming, they're just examples of MS fixing hardware issues and otherwise doing the same thing as Sony (better chips, more capacity). If you want to complain about PS2 BC, fine, but don't throw out these examples about how the 360 is somehow improved with each model when the PS3 models have the exact same improvements with the exception that Sony didn't have to fix one of the biggest quality fuck-ups in gaming history.

I'd say the most appealing upgrade for these new systems is through FIRMWARE now.

The hardware is still being improved (the new PS3 uses less power, is lighter, has a bigger HDD, as an example), but the new features come through firmware.

@Vidikron, lol, yeah MS blundered horribly I couldn't agree with you more, that's why I never bought one. But the Slim also took out the ability to custom OS install. It lost all its SD card slots, and probably still only has 2 USB slots as opposed to 4 I'm not exactly sure on that one. You haven't provided anything that should appeal to consumers for the PS3 Slim over the older releases of the system, which I find amusing. So my simple question to you is, which is better the old PS3, or the new one and give a logical reason why. That's my entire point, I can't find a reason why the Slim is better than the old PS3, but I can name several reasons why it's worse. Can you do that same comparison to the 360 models? Only with improvements to its own flaws, which I did, and don't all products come with SOME flaws? Some worse than others, of course. Couldn't Sony have identified any flaws from the old PS3 model and made those go away? Apparently, Sony only removed good things instead of flaws, see my logic? It's astonishing to me, that's all. And if they're trying to compete for market share they need to give people more reasons to buy a PS3, not less reasons.

Yeah right, the "Total Entertainment Solution", still with no IR that they could have added for pennies. FAIL again.

@Vidikron, lol, yeah MS blundered horribly I couldn't agree with you more, that's why I never bought one. But the Slim also took out the ability to custom OS install. It lost all its SD card slots, and probably still only has 2 USB slots as opposed to 4 I'm not exactly sure on that one. You haven't provided anything that should appeal to consumers for the PS3 Slim over the older releases of the system, which I find amusing. So my simple question to you is, which is better the old PS3, or the new one and give a logical reason why. That's my entire point, I can't find a reason why the Slim is better than the old PS3, but I can name several reasons why it's worse. Can you do that same comparison to the 360 models? Only with improvements to its own flaws, which I did, and don't all products come with SOME flaws? Some worse than others, of course. Couldn't Sony have identified any flaws from the old PS3 model and made those go away? Apparently, Sony only removed good things instead of flaws, see my logic? It's astonishing to me, that's all. And if they're trying to compete for market share they need to give people more reasons to buy a PS3, not less reasons

But, again, when the reason to prefer a new 360 over an older one is, "Well, at least this one is less likely to die one me" then I don't think that makes for a good comparison with the PS3's situation. That's my main issue with your statements here.... that's just no a logical comparison. Using your logic it would have been better if the first couple years worth PS3s were dying in droves and the newer ones are not. Then you could say, "See, these are better"... but that's some screwed up logic.

"But the Slim also took out the ability to custom OS install. It lost all its SD card slots, and probably still only has 2 USB slots as opposed to 4 I'm not exactly sure on that one. You haven't provided anything that should appeal to consumers for the PS3 Slim over the older releases of the system, which I find amusing."

But I thought you were concerned about things related to games? None of this has anything to do directly with games. Yes, the first models had the SD/CF/MS card slots, but who uses those anyway? They made for a nifty bullet point, but not much else. The PS3 supports USB mass storage devices and content can be copied from networked computers (the 360 does not support the latter) so the card slots aren't really needed... and they have literally no gaming use.

Yes, the current systems have two USB ports and the launch systems 4, but why should that matter? The only situation I can think of where it might matter is if you had several people over playing games and had 3 controllers die at once. I've personally never had that happen and doubt it is very common. You could always use a hub if this is a situation you somehow run into often.

Other OS? Who gives a shit? Honestly. We all know full well that in comparison to the user base virtually no one used that feature. Another bullet point that in truth almost no one cared about. Maybe if they had ever allowed the full RAM and GPU to be utilized the feature may have been more popular, but as it was it was pretty much a waste for 99% of the public.

As for why the slim model is better, we've already covered the reasons. It's a bit quieter, runs cooler, uses less power, and is slightly smaller. If we're talking non-gaming features (which you've been doing despite claiming otherwise) then it should be pointed out that the system supports HDMI-CEC and bit streaming of lossless audio codecs. Two fairly minor points IMO, but a safe bet they matter to a lot more people that the missing Other OS feature, 2 USB ports, and card readers.

"And if they're trying to compete for market share they need to give people more reasons to buy a PS3, not less reasons"

The main reason to prefer the new models is the price!

Crap... I meant to cut out that full quote at the top of my post. I just copied it there so I could easily see what I was replying too without scrolling up and down... but forgot to delete it when finished.

lol, Joystiq really needs an edit feature. As for non-gaming features, I personally liked the SD card readers for gaming purposes. That's how I transferred my PSP demos, so if I bought a slim I'd be forced to use the USB slot and connect my PSP directly. Granted, now a days you can direct download (thank goondess). Still, I found gaming uses for that, not to mention backing up my save files which I do constantly, and just have an SD card packed away in my system for that purpose alone. How is that not gaming related? Hell I can do that with a Wii too if I want (which I actually do)! Not so with a PS3 Slim.

I think you're missing the point about my 360 comparison. I agreed with you earlier it was their own fault, and a stupid blunder. The idea behind the comparison is to note the fact that improvements were made, despite for what purpose. That isn't the point, the point is the PS3's upgrades aren't upgrades, they just take things out like BC and the other things I've mentioned. Is there value to audio bit streaming? I dare say not. I made the same comparison with the PSP Go. What about it is an improvement? When they make new systems you would THINK they would improve upon the old model right? That's my point, it's so simple, they aren't improving upon the OLD model. Again the 360 did, and it's a lame comparison I know, but I'm just trying to make the point that Sony didn't improve anything, they went backwards for no reason and the 360 hasn't done that with NEW hardware. What company would do that? Why would they make a lesser product? It doesn't make sense at all.

"As for non-gaming features, I personally liked the SD card readers for gaming purposes. That's how I transferred my PSP demos, so if I bought a slim I'd be forced to use the USB slot and connect my PSP directly. Granted, now a days you can direct download (thank goondess). Still, I found gaming uses for that, not to mention backing up my save files which I do constantly, and just have an SD card packed away in my system for that purpose alone. How is that not gaming related? Hell I can do that with a Wii too if I want (which I actually do)! Not so with a PS3 Slim."

You can still basically do all that stuff. As you mention, you can simply download stuff directly to PSPs via USB. So it's hard to see where anything has been lost here. Having an SD card in your system for save back-ups is pretty convenient, but I don't many people care or would bother. I know I never have and I do have a launch 60GB. And you can accomplish the same task by backing up to a flash drive. Do you honestly think anyone who doesn't have the system yet cares about that? You think they are looking for that bullet point on the back of the box? Doubt it. Maybe as an existing user you are one of the very few that found that useful, but I don't anyone looking now cares one bit and it's the new customers Sony is trying to attract.... which leads to:

"Why would they make a lesser product? It doesn't make sense at all."

Price! They basically trimmed the fat. Backing up saves and the other stuff you brought up are stretches to say the least in terms of their impact on gaming. Most people wouldn't bother doing that and can accomplish the same via USB flash drives. There's nothing the card readers added that can't still be done now. Same with the USB ports. The only thing gaming related feature that the new models can't do that the original models could is PS2 BC. That's it. But instead of being $500 the systems are now $300, have a bigger HDD standard, and are more energy efficient.

IMO, the only valid complaint is the PS2 BC. Sony may have missed the opportunity to put a PS2 section in the PSN store like they do with the PS1 games. I think that may have been able to have been profitable long term, but I obviously can't say for sure. What I can say for sure is that BC definitely didn't help them out initially... they went straight to 3rd place and into enormous debt with their fully decked out system. What put them there was the price of the system and that's what they've been working to fix ever since.

I would argue price went down because the technology is cheaper. And the Wii has all kinds of BC (poor comparison again I know, it's a cheaper system) and they shot straight up to first place so I wouldn't attribute Sony's failures on BC. I don't think ditching BC was a way for Sony to save money, it's clear why they did it, they wanted to spur the sales of their PS3 games as opposed to their PS2 games.

True about the Wii with BC, but it was also a lot cheaper. I'd bet that many of the casual gamers out there buying up crap like Wii Play and Carnival Games aren't using the BC at all. So I'd still argue that BC has little to do with it.

And I personally think Sony did ditch BC to save money... or maybe it was a little of both. Didn't they say it cost them something like $27 per system to have the BC included? Across millions of systems that works out to a ton of money. And if no one is buying any new PS2 games or if it isn't spurring sales of system and then of more PS3 hardware/software then that's money down the drain. I honestly think BC is an overblown bullet point that the vast majority of the gaming public doesn't use once they start playing the newer games.

I think its best use from a business perspective is the potential for downloadable sales. I think cheap downloads can trigger some nostalgic impulse buys. Purely anecdotal, but I myself have a fair number of PS1 games from the store yet the only game I've finished it Twisted Metal 2... and that's just because you can run through that game in one sitting. Everything else was an impulse buy driven by nostalgia. Yet despite having a full BC system I have never gone out to browse used/new PS1 or PS2 games on physical media. It just doesn't matter to me and I think my use of it is probably pretty close how most people treat BC. I'm speculating here, but I'd wager money on it.

vid- just to answer your question: any game which uses guncon 3 and other peripeherils uses USB ports.
Time Crisis 4, for example, uses 2 USB ports for the gun controller and motion sensors.
if i need to charge my controller when dying that would entail a 3rd port.

im curious to see how the ps3 motion controllers will operate and how many USB ports they will use.

it comes in handy sometimes, but is NOT a selling point.

cant we just use a USB hub if we run out of ports anyway?

but vid, card slots, usb ports, and BC were low selling points and not important enough to keep in the console. they would have had to charge more for the console, and a $ 300 ps3 is much more important that 1% of the gaming population caring about card reader slots.

i have a ps3 with BC, 4 usb slots, and media card readers.
and i have used BC a few times, noticed that upscalling is not always better and thus went to the ps2 for some games.
used the usb ports for 1 game.
and i have yet to use the card reader slots.

great extras to have on a console, but nowhere near needed items or important.
just convenient

which 2?

it's not stating that it's the best at gaming, or the best at downloading movies, or the best at blu-ray. It's stating that it's the best machine to do all three....in that regard it is the only console that does all three. so...no, it's not opinion. you're just a bad reader.

What do you mean bluray titles? If you mean, "Can we download Sony HD movies and own them?" then the answer is yes...

well...blu-ray is in disc format that you can buy. I'm confused about what you're saying

You can download HD movies to your XBox from the store or stream them from your Media Server but there's what you cannot do on your XBox but can do on your PS3:

- You can copy/stream HD movies to your PS3 from any source (http:, Media Server, USB device, CD-R/RW, DVD-R/RW)
- You can purchase HD movies on a Blu Ray disc.
or You can purchase HD movies from the PS Store.
or You can rent HD movies from the PS Store.

That's the most important things that Sony should tell you, but they don't. Because they are idiots and don't know how to highlight the best of PS3 capabilities.

You buy BluRay and keep the disk forever, it's a storage medium. Both systems have a rental service for videos and the 360 has Netflix, which does HD streaming.