In a recent interview with Hollywood In Hi-Def, Kaz Kirai went with the usual song and dance about the PS3 and its infinite superiority. PS3 versus other consoles were discussed as always, and Kaz had a bit to say on that:
HIRAI: I have heard many people say our competitors’ systems are just as powerful as PS3. That simply is not true. No other next-generation entertainment system pushes the envelope on advanced technology like PS3. I have heard people say that a high-capacity game delivery vehicle like Blu-ray isn’t necessary in a next-generation computer entertainment system. You just can’t expect that the 9 GBs of storage capacity found on today’s DVDs are going to have enough space to hold tomorrow’s games. Developers have already pushed the DVD to its limits in terms of space used. We had games like ‘Resistance: Fall of Man’ coming in 16 GBs at launch. That game simply wouldn’t be possible on any other system without using multiple discs. There is no doubt in my mind that you need more capacity on discs for truly next-generation gaming, and Blu-ray gives us that space.
Sony kind of reminds me of Rome in the time of Jesus these days. The focus is all power, what it can do, and conquering everything else. We KNOW you have a powerful system, guys. The thing is, you're still struggling to sell them and Microsoft isn't struggling to sell the 360. Nintendo are rolling around in their money up there at headquarters and laughing the demented laugh of the hysterically rich. What's the secret here? Let me let you in on it, Sony - no matter how advanced your product is, if people aren't having FUN playing it, it won't sell.
Consumers have lost respect for Sony because Sony has lost respect for its audience. If their public announcements are any clue, Sony envisions us as a technology-hungry audience willing to plop down all our savings for the newest, best thing. Sometimes, this does work. But the factor of price is a big thing to all consumers, whether the system is amazing or not. By taking themselves too seriously and making one vain choice after another, they have lost much of the fanbase they gained with the PS2, myself included.
Laugh at Wii's cheesy family oriented approach all you want, but it's selling consoles. If Sony would remember their consumers for what they want and enjoy, they might have a chance to regain them. Forget their humanity and approach them like robots, and they will continue to lose people. It's really as simple as that.
Contest:
3:44 PM on 10.05.2007
| 
If you can't cut the price without losing 10 games worth of profits per system, your only realistic option is to build value by hyping features.
Little Big Planet looks cool, but I'd never touch that. I'm just too lazy to be making levels.
But wait! In 3 days it'll resurrect with HD and a new Kid Icarus!
but our games are not any better...
:[
In my book, USD $399 = Danube.
When your games start looking and playing leaps and bounds better than 360 games, I will believe the PS3 is the more powerful system. Til then, kindly STFU.
-Us3d ta b3
You've compared Hirai's comment on the power of the PS3 with Sony's attitude towards gamers, and unfortunately, I don't think that can really be supported here. His conversation piece is strictly on the power of the PS3, and the perception of that power. As a result, your article comes off a little like a thread-jack in a forum, where you're just trying to steer the conversation off topic.
You can obviously write well, but I think your post shows some really strong bias. As a reader, that's a bit of a put-off for me.
The first thing that comes to my mind is that sony corporate would have liked to get the ps3 launch to this date and not a year before.
It was a rushed release.
Now the system obviously has a lot of potential and lacks of all the 360 hardware problems that have stained the life of that console.
i'm honestly, what is 599 now, compared to what it was when the ps2 or ps1 launched? think about it. seriously..
$599(2006) = $511.58(2000) = $445.07(1994)
For the PS1 (North American Launch: Sept. 1995/ Price: $300): "What cost $300 in 1995 would cost $393.53 in 2006."
Going backwards: "What cost $600 in 2006 would cost $457.40 in 1995." What cost $600 in 2006 would cost $512.44 in 2000.
Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Playstation
http://www.westegg.com/inflation/
Perhaps you're the one that needs to think about it. Moron. Before you say "DUR $450 CLOSE 2 360 LAUNCH PRICE DURRRR."
"What cost $400 in 2005 would cost $315.30 in 1995." (In other words, the 360's launch price now would cost the same as a PS1 at its launch).
So yeah basically, $600 is unreasonable for a games console that barely has any games, especially when its competitors are within the reasonable price range for a games console.
Uh.. Ok. Why do you assume that the only people that dislike the PS3 are Halo 3 fans? And why do you assume that everyone must like those 4 games despite their personal taste? Gran Turismo is boring (but only because I find racing sims to be boring), Ratchet and Clank does not interest me, and neither does Little Big Planet. The only game that's interesting to me is Metal Gear, but I highly doubt I'm going to shell out $500 for a console with only one interesting game.
I don't see what's keeping me from saying each and every title you just mentioned are completely awesome. Will these titles draw attention from others? Probably. But why should I give a fuck? If those games don't appeal to me, then I don't see why I should give the PS3 props just because it appeals to others. Only a fanboy would care about how a console or game is doing on a general level, because only fanboys think that their own personal opinion should be shared by everyone.
I could be asking the same thing about PUH-lenty of games out there on the Wii and the 360, so don't go there.
Why are you mentioning the 360 and Wii? Vexed Alex wasn't comparing anything (and neither was I in my own post). All he commented on were the lack of interesting games for the PS3. Go ahead and ask the same question about Wii and 360 games, I don't see how it should affect the argument about the PS3.
Then don't get it. For those who are fans of the types of games I listed, and haven't gotten the system yet, they might make you want to get it. If you aren't a fan of any of them then so be it, don't buy it. And the Halo comment was mostly meant as a joke and not to be taken seriously. Of those I listed only 2 really interest me, Metal Gear, and Turismo, with Ratchet and Clank still being a possibility. Those and Killzone are the ones I'm really looking forward too.