After all of the quotes they have been saying, they just keep shooting themselves in the foot repeatedly. It seems that no one else has posted these so here ya go:

Ken Kutaragi:

"Speaking about the PS3, we never said we will release a game console. It is radically different from the previous PlayStation. "
-----------------------------------------

Niall O'hanrahan:

"We have a marketing challenge from now until launch. This is not a done deal. It will require a lot of effort from us,"

"We would never say we cannot fail"
------------------------------------------

David Reeves

"The name of the game is not market share, it's how fast we can grow the industry"
------------------------------------------

Molly Smith

"Having managed Sony America's PR machine for over ten years, it's a bit surprising that she'd leave so suddenly."

Although she didn't have a quote what she has done speaks for it self.
-------------------------------------------

All of these quotes were taken form www.kotaku.com.

Well those are some pretty bad quotes. It seems that Sony is more intrested in selling a comupter that plays DVD's rather a game console and they are quite arrogant about it.

I don't think there's much they can say that can help the X360 now to be honest.
But regarding what Sony say they are selling, it doesn't change what's inside the machine. I'll still get a Cell processor that can play PS3 games, even if they claim it can also make french toast, or whatever else they want to have it do.

I did hear that they said that the PS3 will be able to function as a computer as well, and is powerful enough to be able to process anything you'd normally want to do on your PC.
If you get a Super PC as an "extra ", I'll be quite stunned. But I'm sure they have more ideas for it that they haven't revealed yet. But I'm mainly getting it as a game console.

The focus of PS3 seems to be moving further and further away from being a game sconsole with every crazy comment we hear about the system.

Expanding on a comment you made, LunarMaster:



This...I find strange. They are marketting the PS3 as all in one media centre, that can play games, that's the impression I'm getting. Upgrading a games console seems crazy to me, but at the same time it's not just a games console, its a media centre that can play games. MediaStation.

These all in one media centres have been tried many times before, including by Sony themselves with the PSX; they have always failed. Things are different now, but only time can tell if it's going to be what the general consumer wants. If they do, the price is very good.

If a customer wants just a games console, they may look somewhere else. I think maybe they need to take a closer look at the average PS2 owner.

It's the same deal that happened with the PSP, it could do everything, but it had no focus. It is a jack of all trades, and a master of none. Though, that's a completely different situation, PSP lacks the software wheras PS3 will have great software, but you can see some parralels. If you want to.

Well that's the thing. They probably won't, because it's a "PlayStation". Sony knows that so I guess that's why they are saying this.
People are already accepting the PS3's worth at the price it's currently on. More or less anyway. Having all these "extras" seems more like a bonus then, if you know what I mean.

But honestly, I think this is just their strategy to increase the appeal of the PS3.
It's a game console that can do more, not the other way around. But everyone already knows about the game console. That's the first thing that comes to mind when you think of the PS3. So in order to enhance it's other features, those are put in focus, because Playstation 3 the game console will never fade or be forgotten by the masses, even if it's put outside of the spotlight. So having these other features in the spotlight will make people go, "There's something even more important and better than the actual game console? Wow!"

Well that's what I think anyway.
But I'm a bit surprised that Microsoft weren't the first to do this. I always thought Xbox was a bit like a computer.

My thoughts as well. Even while reading those, I interpret at least most of them as positive comments about it. At least to me. We can go through a couple.



To most peoples eyes, it'll generally be a game console, I guess. But Sony want it to come out as more, even if it won't be treated as more then it from some people. Flaunting its possibilities is woo.
I guess this one can be freely interpreted though, although I'd say it'd appeal to people.



And if they succeed, they'll appear as the humble WINNARS. Maybe.



Marketing comment. Commonly used, as well! Nothing wrong with saying you want to explore and expand.



Dunno, this sound just really irrelevant to the rest of the stuff, as if it'd have something to do with it.
People joining and quitting isn't always that spectacular, ya know.

Sony being humble I don't see as a bad thing. People complained before about them being arogant, and now they complain about them being humble.
Oh well. It just makes them sound more down to earth. Because they could go around boasting about how they'd win, but they won't score sympathy points for that, even if it turns out to be true.

The ones on top can always afford to be humble though.

The thing now is are they going to market a game consel, or a MediaStation? If it's a MediaStation, they'll lack as large a library as the PS2. Not to mention they'll start to spread themselfs thin, i.e. with marketing Blue-ray disks. I think they should focus on one or the other, otherwise the Gamer will suffer....

May I ask, where did you get that idea? It doesn't make sense to me. The Playstation 3 console will always be there. Why would their library grow smaller?
Or are you talking about games created by Sony's own company?
They hardly even have any. Almost 100% is third party. They're not like Nintendo.

And even so, hardware development divisions are completely separate from the game development divisions. Even if they had forst party games, and they hardly do, it wouldn't effect game development. Sony is a huge company, and they already have more hardware development reseources than most companies in the world. It wouldn't take away from the games... Your logics go straight over my head, so fill me in please.

I mean the PS3 won't have as many games, as the PS2 did. Simply to the fact that it'll cost a lot more to produce the games, especially from a third party point of view.

Again, what? Sorry, but what does PS3 being a media station have to do with games being more expensive?
That is what you said, wasn't it?
" If it's a MediaStation, they'll lack as large a library as the PS2."

(I know what a media library is btw, I asked why...)

No they won't since the media - aka movies and music, aren't made by them. And thus, in no way would make the game development and production go downhill.

Stop taking it extremely literal. It's marketing, most people understand that.

The reason I buy a game console is to play games. I don't need a computer from it because I could just use my computer for that. Also those statements seem like they want to use hardware upgrades the way computers upgrade.That's one of the main reasons I perfer gaming on a console rather than on a computer. The fact that they don't mind forcing Blue-Ray even if it hurts their game console shows just how little they care about gamers. So if you want a game console you get a Wii or a 360, and if you want a blue-ray computer that also happens plays games, you get a PS3. Sony is really messing up this launch.

I agree with LunarMaster. I bought a PSP, and I really only play games on it. I have never play a movie, and I rarely listen to music on it. I can get on the Internet but again, I'm always playing a game. I think they should make stuff like that optional, but I think it's to late...

Funny that people always seem to want to hurt Sony if they're doing rather pretty good.
Sony did better then the other consoles at the E3, so now people want to find things that will put Sony into a bad daylight.

I do want to play games, and you know what? I will buy the PS3, for it has the games I want to play, not because it has a blue ray disk, or an HDD, it has the games I want.

I will not buy the 360, for it's games are lame, I don't like them and I will not play them. Gee, that really has got to do with the fact it has less hardware



I have a PSP aswell, not only do I play games, I listen to music on it everyday aswell, why? Saves me the trouble of bringing an Ipod and a PSP along, I bring one PSP along and have music on all the time.

SwodeG... I think my post count will go up to 20 000 + just by trying to make sense out of your posts.

Could you answer my previous question? I have no clue what you're on about... as usual.

And why do people not watch movies on the PSP?
Becaus the screen is only a few inches...
Are you comparing that to watching High Definition/Blu Ray movies on a 32 - 42 inch HD TV?


Blu-Ray hurts their console? Funny, I've heard developers say that they have achieved things that are only possible with Blu Ray.
An upgrade in media storage is usually a good idea. Xbox 360 is the first standard console ever not to upgrade it.


No offense, but those logics are almost on par with SwodeG's.
If you want a game console, you can still get a PS3, in spite of the extra things it has.
It doesn't matter if it has a billion extra features, or what they claim that the main feature is, as long as the PS3 can do what they have showed us it can do.

As for failing a launch, they'd have to have a million PS3's expload on the launch day to take that title from Xbox.

Would you rather have a Blue-Ray or $200 worth of games? Blue-Ray is not needed for gaming. Was it really so terrible swapping discs while you played FF7-9 ,MGS, or any other multi-disc game. That fact that Oblivion fit on one Disc is proof that you can pack huge games into DVDs.

The PS3 library wont be as big as the PS2 library. It's a fact of the next generation, and applies to the 360 aswell. Games are costing more and taking longer to make, which also makes the risk for original content even higher.

Sony will always have thier big exclusives, but those aren't the games that masses buy. The games that shifted so many PlayStations are GTA, Tony Hawk, and pretty much every EA sports game. When these games are on both the next gen consoles, it's basically a toss up between what you want from your system, as the balance of quality titles is a lot more even this time around. It's still shifting towards Sony, but nothing to the degree of the PS2.



It is strange, as the 360 can do all the multimedia junk the PS3 can, minus blu ray of course. The message I'm getting is the 360 is a games console with multimedia functions, wheras the PS3 is a multimedia centre that also plays games. Asking people to shell that much money for stuff they dont want is putting a hella lot of faith in the PlayStation brand.

They shouldn't be championing these functions as much if they want to sell the average Joe, but I can see exactly why they are, to justify the price.



Lol, industry opinion is pretty much the same, but I wouldn't be caught saying that around here.



That's the exception rather than the rule though. I dont think people realise how big a DVD actually is, and the wonders of compression.

Well it's not just swaping discs I'm talking about. The Getaway presentation before E3 showed real time graphical details that would not be possible on a DVD, because it takes hundreds and hundreds of MB just for the backgrounds to look that way.

That's just one example, but its rather the fact that they can do more with the games with Blu Ray that is the point.
There's no longer any restriction for the game director other than his creativity.
Things were taken out of Kingdom Hearts 2 due to insufficient disc space for example, and it's far from the only game I've heard those lines from.

Better games is worth the $200 for me. Is it so strange to pay more to get more?


Like I said before, avarage gamer joe may buy the same game that his mate joe#2 buys (Madden 06), which puts it on the top selling list. But their not so broad interest limits their gaming compared to a hardcore gamer, who all buy a lot of different games.

One popular game may look spectacular on the selling charts, but not compared to two or three other games combined.

What's so hard to understand Arthun? THoT got it.
BTW, you got a point there. No one System is better than another, it matters on the games they present. We could go on and on about how each system has it's strong & weak points, but that could go on forever. If it's a gamble or not on the PS3, is nobodys problem but the makers...





Define "Better". Better graphics? I doubt it's 200 worth.

SwodeG, go and read the other topic. 50 people already defined that for you.



Your brain is. "1/3 (Online) + 1/3 (Harddrive) + 1/3 (Blu-Ray) = $600"

But enlighten me.

"If it's a MediaStation, they'll lack as large a library as the PS2."

It would have the same library (for PS3) whether it was a media station or not.
The PS3's gaming technology makes game development more pricey, not the extra features.
Same for X360.

*SwodeG, post deleted.*

Don't troll.

My definition was in that topic, along with Natsuki, Vinsfeld and other people.
You can answer the question that I've asked you 5 times, or not. But don't post again with "What's hard to understand", or you'll get a warning for trolling.

I don't see why you're always asuming that the confusion problem is on the other end, when you hardly ever make sense to anyone.

No if they focus, on adding more things to the MediaStation, then that's less things, less attention they put the gaming part. And let's face it how many people bought the PS2 to play DVDs?


Like THoT said:



If they keep driving the price up to make a game, then less companies will make the games.

Real Mature, BTW.

That has nothing to do with the media station, or the PS3 being a computer.
The media station has nothing to do with the increased cost of making games. It's the power of the PS3 gaming console itself. That's what THoT was talking about.

And keep answering a question with another question five times, you'll just be annoying people. Expect those posts to be deleted. No one wants to ask 50 times to get a straight answer. There's nothing imature about that other than your replies.

Really, it's hard to understand your thinking some times, so you could try and be a bit more clear. Especially when people ask you.

Understood. But all I'm saying is if they keep trying to make it something other than a "Gaming Console", the Games will suffer.

No they won't. The games will only cost as much as the "gaming console" makes them.
Is this all going over your head or something?
They can add a rocket launcher and a toaster, and the games will still cost the same to produce. PS3 and X360 games cost more because of the power of the "game station".
The Wii is weak in comparison, so they can keep the price down, even if they made their Wii into the same media station as the PS3.

The Matrix movie costs more to produce than an old Charlie Chaplin movie. Guess why?

Yes, the games will cost the same, but the quality will go down. They have to give up something, to add on all these other features.

No... the PS3 is still the same as it was when it was first presented.
They won't give anything up there. Where are you getting your ideas? Just "read" a bit, and you wouldn't be so confused all the time.

The PS3 games runs on 3.2 Ghz Cell processor, no matter what extra they add on the side.

Impossible, I'll give an analogy. If you keep pouring water in a bucket, eventually, it'll overflow, same with everything else. If they keep adding stuff, they'll either have to add more mem (which will cost you more), or they'll go back and take somethings out. Kinda like they did with games. I can remember something about Kindom Hearts II, a couple of posts back.

Maybe you shouldn't try to explain things using analogies... If it takes you 20 posts to understand something as simple as this, I assume your comprehension ability isn't the highest. I'm trying my best to explain though. *sigh*

Add more memory? Do you know what RAM is? No matter how many extra files I save unto my computer, they will make use of the same RAM memory, but only when they are in use.
The PS3 being able to function as a computer will make use of its already innstalled functions. It won't require more from the PS3 game console.

Just get it through your head.
The PS3 game console won't change, no matter what they put in there.

When you turn it on to play games, do you think the PC mode, the Blu Ray movie player mode, the rocket launcher mode and the toaster mode will all be running at the same time?

And again, that has nothing to do with games costing more money.
You said that if they add more features to the console, the games will be more expensive. So far you haven't been able to back up that claim. Simply because you made it up.
Find and article that supports anything you said.

Yeah guys you're absolutely right. There's not going to be any games available for it, Sony is just going to have all its developers abandon them and never have anyone make games for their system because now we can watch Blu Ray DVD's and marvel at the wonders of a 600 dollar DVD player.

They're all just going to rust on the shelves, no companies are going to want to make games for the most powerful system on the market, and no one at all including Sony itself wants anyone to own the machine and play games on it.

Yup, the guys who have been leading in console sales and game sales for the past couple generations is just going to give it all up and let everything go to hell.

Nintendo is going to be the favorite of this generation, sell the most consoles and games, Microsoft will sell millions of units in japan and the PS3 is going to be a wonderful DVD player with the best technology going to waste. Yeah that all sounds about right.

Seeing TED's post, it feels like I've discovered life on a dead planet.

Man, my head... seriously.

Anyway, back to the realm of IQ, like I said earlier, the PS3 has a set price already, so whatever extra they add won't subtract from the console, but rather add to it.
People already want the game console, so the super computer and entertainment system will only attract additional interest.

Game development costs have gone up, but they always go up. That's a fact everyone needs to accept. But I don't see game developers failing Sony PlayStation 3.
No pain, no gain. The industry is growing, and so are the games and consoles.

This topic is funny. I wish I got into the discussion earlier. =p

No matter what else is added to the PS3, whether it be a DVD player, CD player, microwave, oven, hair trimmer, lawn mower, or gatling gun, the quality of the games, cost of the games, and the library of games available for the PS3 WILL NOT CHANGE.

Well, there's my two cents. =p

Uh, and if this bucket is a BLUERAY bucket, which you were complaining before had TOO much space, it'll take a fine while for it to overflow. And please tell me, in comparison to what?

Speaking of which, don't forget the fine fact that having a smaller library then the PS2 is impossible, since it'll include that entire library.



How so? Extra features are extra bonus, doesn't matter how useful or useless they are. It'll still always be a game console.


You're transparent in your arguments. Stop nitpicking. We've realized that you'll never be satisfied with a console you don't like.

True. But I never said I disliked the PS3. I just said it was too expensive. But yea, I guess I'm not a Computer Nerd. And I mean by that is I know how to use it, but I don't know how all it's componets work. But can't we all agree XBox sucks?

I think we should all agree that discussing things you don't understand is a bad idea.

And yes, Xbox sucks, because it's logo is green.

I just see it as the next evolution of the video game console. They get a little heat cuz they are changing things, until it comes out and everybody loves it. If all they ever did is make graphics better and loading times faster then people will eventually get tired of the same crap. You can only make something so pretty before you want more out of it. From what I've read they want to make this a console the you can expand so you don't have to buy a whole new consol in a few years. People are complaining about the price (me too a little bit) but if it can do most things a computer can do, nobody complains about spending $3,000 on a fancy computer. If spending $600 now will save me from buying a new console in a few years I'm all for it. If you don't want to spend that kind of money now, wait a year, the price will come down. I think everyone is just tired of hearing the same old arguement......move on and find something new to cry about.

Exactly, no matter how Sony will advertise the console, that is how most people are going to view it. I can understand Sony trying to justify the price, in fact I was informed that Sony will actually lose money from the PS3 at first, and I can believe it. But I still think it is ridiclous of them trying to pass it as a computer/blu-ray player/whatever that can play games. No matter how Sony is going to advertise the PS3, consumers are going to see it as the other way around.

Therein lies a problem, Vilagen.

If the consumer sees it only as a console, will they be willing to pay $600 for it?

And yes, they are going to loose hundreds of millions of dollars on the PS3 in the first few years, as it costs a lot more to make than $600.

They already know that everyone is aware of PS3 the game console. So even if they take that aspect out of focus, it won't be forgotten by anyone. This way, they can make it seem as if there is something greater, more important and impressive than the game console itself, by making it the PS3's "main" aspect.

I havn't read the whole thread, just the first post, and I personally don't care if it's a "PC" or a console. As long as it has good games, then I'm fine with it. I've never figured out what the big deal with that is. I mean, that was peoples argument with the first XBox.

I say, give me good games, I don't care if it's a suped up NES or a Computer packed in a carboard box. Let me play good games dammit.

So, yay for sony, they have a new system coming that I will be getting

Sure, because people will still know what the system can do. Even though the PS2 was advertised as a console it was not like anyone ignored the fact it could play DVDs. It would be the same with the PS3, no one is going to ignore what it is capable of. Not only that, but it really is not hard for Sony to justify the price. Their biggest problem is not justifying the price, but how they will be able to lower it in the future since that will be a big factor for the system's success down the line.

All that I am saying is that Sony is truly ridiclous if they think they are going to be able to convience the majority of consumers that the PS3 is a computer instead of a console. It's last two predecessors were game consoles, the system is referred as being part of the console wars, it's main focus are gamers, it is mainly in competition with the other game consoles. Sony can try to say all they want about the PS3, it will be considered a game console first and anything else it can do second.

I think it's more of enhancing it's other abilities. The DVD player didn't seem like something greater than the PS2 itself. By putting the PC functions in focus it makes it seem as if it's better than the game console itself. And something better than a PS3 game console must be worth a lot of $$, right?

And the price is more than justified for what we're getting. It's just that we're getting a lot, and paying a lot. Even if it's well worth it, that's also a factor.

I dont think anyone thinks it isn't worth the money for what you get. If it had an Apple or a Dell logo on it, it could sell for $1,000. But it's PlayStation on there, a brand which represents gaming. $600 is $600 regardless if what you get it worth it or not, and it's a lot of money.

It's just that if you only want it for playing games, it's more money than you'd want to pay.

Now this is something I can relate to. I only want it for the games, yes. I couldn't care less about all those grand add-ons and whatnot. Even though I am willing to pay for all the added crap, I find it quite stupid that I have to do so. I've always thought that a gaming console should stay just that, a console for gaming. And not turn it into some sort of super PC.

Oh well, in the end it really doesn't matter because I'll be getting it either way. =p

On the other hand, I would have payed 600 for my PS2, if that's the price I had to pay for not missing out on the games I've been able to enjoy over the past 5 years now. (In fact, I have spent over 600 on my PS2, counting both consoles and the mod chips and memory cards.) What was the alternative? Xbox? GC? That wouldn't have done it for me.

Looking at the games, yeah I'd pay the price. But in reality you are paying for the hardware itself, so that's all you're really looking at.