It seems like they focus on individual features instead of trying to put "it does everything" into each presentation. I can see how that makes sense, but I think they need to determine it more by the audience than just alternating it.

Hirai seems to put it well in more candid settings, but when he's on stage he's trying to sell the system instead of just giving a straight answer. Everyone does it. The theme could be "Step Right Up" by Tom Waits.

Sony's Next BS3...

Need to come stock...

w/prescription bottle of Lithium & a copy Motorstorm!
It would "PUSH" millions of Americans to buy 1 or 3!

Wow.

@ hexix

Nothing seems to be working except PriceCuts...
It's their advertising that, honestly as a BS3 "EARLY ADOPTER" is laughable...

L@@K Microsoft... They pushing (B)illions into ads & "Deals"... HALO 3 GAMEFUEL Mt. DEW, anyone? A Halo 3 Themed Nascar... HALO 3 on every G**D**N Website on the face of the planet...

I WANTED to buy a 360 2-3 times, until I broke down & ONLY bought a BS3! AND to make matters worse I'm hyped up more about Halo3 than my ( REALLY AWSOME ) copy of Heavenly Sword... Why because I've been beat down by Microcrap's AD Campaigns... Not that I want Halo3 I just wish I was hyped up about the NEXT SONY BIG THING... Well that is... ( Adds Sony's Awesome Advertisment, Where? )

Get it?

you know, i'm getting kind of sick of this debate. am i really one of a small group of people that can see it for everything that it does and still appreciate it all?

when you go buy a car usually the more options the better. now more options means more money so people have to make decisions concerning this balance between options and price.

now granted there isn't as many options with the ps3, but you are getting a machine that has lots of options that make it versatile beyond being just a game machine.

i don't know, i guess i just can't stop thinking [thanks to this bickering] there is a very large part of the population that think, " does the playstation 3 play games? i mean the ps1 and ps2 play games, but the ps3 seems like it does other stuff. that fact alone brings in to question its ability to play games." seriously, can that be true?

come on everyone, don't give the ps3 an identity crisis too. people already make fun of it because of its figure. let it be all that it can be. [and no that was not an army pun, just what i wanted to say]

I bought mine for the BluRay player. What's the problem? It plays games as well? OH NOES!

^ You would think basing the purchase of a PS3, would be it's technical merits... ( Blu-Ray Discs/Player ) is the biggest one next to the Cell Processor.

40% of the people that bought one ( Me not one of them ), bought it solely on hype; apparently!

That's poor Advertising on Sony's part... For what I believe as the best next-gen console... Sony is so use to be #1. They forgot what's it like to be behind. Meaning a atmosphere & an attitude once strongly held, needs tuning & reshaping!

Call me crazy if you will, but I remember the Sega Saturn having more power than the PS1 and the Sega Dreamcast having more power than the PS2 and neither could match Sony's library of games. Sega at the very least had games worth playing. The PS3 STILL doesn't have a library to speak of and STILL has no games worth playing (except Resistance:Fall of Man). Having a BluRay (or HDDvd) player right now makes no sense because the market hasn't decided which format stays or goes. Newer PS3 have no backward compatibility (or is that Europe only?) or rumble controllers. Bottom Line: Square Enix is right to be concerned because the average consumer doesn't have $250 - $600 or more to just throw away. When said consumer is ready to spend their money on a system, Square wants their games on that system.

Uh... no.

PS3's still have BC, it's just all software now instead of hardware, so less titles are compatible. But if Cabala's Super Beer Chugging/Deer Rape 4 is that important to you, I'll buy you an older PS3.

I'm not getting into the BR vs HD DVD thing, but I'm not worried about my decision to stick only with a PS3.

The dicky thing they've done is release the console with no rumble and then show up a year after they settle the lawsuit and act like it's no big deal and expect US to eat the cost of getting rumble put back in.

Square and Konami do whatever they want to do, whereever they want to. If MGS never comes to 360, it never comes, big deal. It will, but I'm speaking in hypotheticals.

FFXIII? Okay, how much of a big splash did X make? Huge? X-2? Less. FFXI? Less. FFXII? Slightly more than X-2, but nowhere near as much as X or any of the PSX ones. FF's getting to the point of lower returns, meaning that they're going to have to get their head in the game to pump life back into the series, or leave it for soemthing else. Considering they think they can plan to milk a decade's worth of games out of FFXIII's franchise, I would say this horse is about to start being beaten before it's even dead.

FFXIII may end up a great game, but 10 years worth of content and spinoffs off of one title? Get over yourselves guys.

lololol @ 'balancing act'

sony needs to run away and join the fucking circus

*woosh*
^ the sound of the concept of the joke completely passing over his head

@luvmysegadc

You're remembering wrong. The PS2 came out when the Dreamcast had already been out for a few months and the launch library was a joke compared to all the games that were on Dreamcast. What was evident immediately was that the PS2 had more power than the Dreamcast. A good example was DOA2, which was already on the Dreamcast, was the same game but with added lighting & motion blur effects for the PS2 version.

Trust me, I owned a Dreamcast at the time, but I could still see that SSX for the PS2 was something that would not be possible on a dreamcast. The draw distance and the amount of effects happening on the screen surpassed anything I had seen on my Dreamcast.

Now that the Dreamcast is dead, there's a vocal community that wants to rewrite history and make it seem like it was a powerful machine that just wasn't given a chance, but that's just not the case. It had some cool quirky games -- but most of those (Crazy Taxi, Jet Grind Radio, so on) were Sega published and can now be found on other platforms with superior graphics.

There are a lot of parallels you could draw between the Dreamcast vs PS2 and 360 vs PS3. However, to say the PS2 won because it had more games isn't true. It won because Sony was able to market the PS2 as a powerhouse of a machine that could also play those crazy new things called DVD movies. The huge library of games came later.

Why is this a story if all gamers care about is games and this is a game site not an a/v blog. Its not a big deal or confusing. Its a playstation 3 that plays games , movies, music etc. Quite simple. The games will and are coming, as are the blurays and other firmware updates making it a cutting edge entertainment system. End of story. Who cares about which one Kaz Hirai is emphasizing at any given minute. SO he is inconsistent. Who here among us isnt especially if we were in the spotlight like him. Does any of this really matter. Do his inconsistencies really cause developers to stop making games for the system. No. move on. Iam sure there are a lot more important GAMING issues to talk about then LATCHING onto any negative item surrounding the ps3. SO old...

Ok, lets see...
-the ps2 has a good library and is selling well.

-The 360 is a piece of shit of hardware that is making Microsoft loose money with a gaming division that it should be making profits some months ago.

(im not going to talk about the wii because is another marker segment)

- the ps3 is good hardware, expensive right now.

All im saying is that maybe, just maybe the ps3 is going to be important at the end of the 360 cycle, when the 360 technology is outdated the ps3 will have a good line up of games ready (hopefully), lots of power under the hood and is going to be like the ps2 right now.
I think that the ps3 is going to be THE console in three years time, but i could be wrong, we need games for the thing.

@mxy
You forgot to mention that it knocks out the fat!

Keep dreaming for that kind of price cut, they are already losing or hardly making any profit at all selling the console at the price now. While it might happen in the future, it won't happen overnight or at least the near future. If you want a in-expensive or "cheap" console try the Wii or just keep playing your xbox or ps2. The library of games will get better, it does suck that at this stage there are only a few exclusive games and not very many that make you want to but the system to play it. That will happen down the road for sure.

If the console can do all the things it says it can why not advertise it? Case in point the Iphone, while it may not be the best device out there the marketing campaign was stellar, and it showed a ton of things that a "phone" could do. I'm really not sure why Sony seems to focus on one thing then another, but hey at least they can. If your car could give you a back massage, cook your dinner, and pleasure you while you drive wouldn't you advertise all those things rather than focus on just one?

@casualweaponry: I hope they all succeed too. The more players in the game, the more interesting things get. Competition increases ingenuity.

This is how I see things:

The PS3 was built to be "future-proof" for quite some time - 10 years, right?. The thing is, Microsoft will come out with a new Xbox in 2, 3, 4 years, somewhere in there. The 360 is a powerful machine and the graphics, for most games I've seen, are pretty comparable to the PS3's. The 360 costs about $100 less. The way I see it, Microsoft will make sure that the 360 will ALWAYS cost about $100 less. That gives Microsoft a permanent price advantage. Things are pretty even at this point; that's when Sony's Blu-ray steps in to claim "superiority" as a system. However, when Microsoft is ready to launch its next system, the PS3 will finally be at a price that average people might be willing/able to pay for a console. In addition, the PS3 will be halfway through its life cycle. Microsoft, being a relatively smart company, will launch the new system for not too much more than the price of a PS3. The new system will have even more capabilities than the PS3 in terms of graphics, sound, hard drive, multimedia, internet, full backwards compatibility, etc. Who knows - maybe it'll even have a Blu-ray drive, since the "format wars" will (hopefully) be over and the price of technology should decrease significantly by that time. Microsoft's new system will basically be what the 360 kinda wants to be now - a game-playing media hub - but it will succeed to this end much more than the 360 or PS3. That gives Microsoft the advantage in virtually every way. While Sony is still developing the PS4, which won't be due out for another 5 years at that time, Microsoft will be selling it's new system like hotcakes, and also working on their next system - which will probably be released at the same time as the PS4. Microsoft wins because of two main reasons: 1) They were able to sell two consoles in the same period that Sony sold one. 2) Microsoft's new technology will be more powerful and fairly priced (compared to the PS3 launch).

Does anyone agree?

^teh blue ray?