Context Sensitive: Who Is the PS3 For?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

I don't know if I want to join the epic battle of strawman vs ad hominem here...

For those in the know, we know what the PS3 is. As far as it's marketing (you know, what they use to get people not "in the know" in... the know), it does seem a little off.

You know?

Sony is and has been in an awful position since the PS3s release. It's capable of so much, but really the only way to let people know how much it can do is to point out all the things that the other systems can't, which would make Sony look like total dicks.

Does anyone question the Iphone commercials that bring up things that have nothing to do with telecommunications? No one states that the Iphone has an identity crisis whenever one of these commercials comes out because everyone (In the press in particular.) understands that smartphones like the Iphone are intended to be swiss army knife type devices. Sony has actually been rather consistent in marketing (Albeit poorly.) the Playstation 3 as a swiss army knife console. The only people who have not noticed this are the gaming press. * They assume that they are the only market that Sony is targeting with the device. The reality of the situation does not reflect this belief. That isn't to say that gamers are the biggest target audience for this device however.

*Should I change that "are" to is?

mrx19869:
[quote="rembrandtqeinstein" post="6.180282.5286698"]100% dead on. The ps3 was not only released last, had the glorious $600 price tag/quote]

yeah but how much money has xbox360 users payed since launch to get online and play with your friends? It seems like i have spent less on my ps3 5 years down the road because i payed a higher price tag up front.

Your point is moot, people who get a console to play online with friends WILL get a 360 just because Live is so much more advanced and the overall community is massively larger. Disclaimer, this only applies to north america.

Susan Arendt:

mrx19869:

Susan Arendt:

mrx19869:
does anybody know if this "Susan Arendt" the author of this post owns a PS3, and if so what model?

Yes, I do, an original launch model. Ah, sweet, sweet BC....

I find that you (and Sony's marketing) forget to mention other great features the PS3 has going for it.

This isn't an article about the PS3's merits. This is about how Sony can't seem to focus on a message for its console. The average consumer is left with little to latch onto, because Sony's marketing is so scattershot. Ergo, the PS3's various plusses, which are many, aren't really relevant. I say the PS3 is great, which is is. Why do I need to go into more detail than that?

Oh, and to address folks saying the 360 plays copycat, too...well, yes, absolutely it does, and I never claimed otherwise. To say that Sony's marketing is failing isn't saying that Microsoft's is succeeding. I'm not praising Microsoft simply because I'm not saying "yeah, they suck, too." This article is in response to a Sony trailer, and addresses Sony's apparent lack of understanding of its own product. Microsoft really isn't relevant for that discussion. If/when Microsoft releases a commercial for Natal that is practically a shot-for-shot copy of a Wii commercial, you can be sure I'll mention it.

Well obviously you can't say something about the ps3 without infering something about the 360...right?...

I enjoyed your article. I don't begrudge the blatent copy of design(it's a good idea, and I think it's really about who does it best...rather than who did it first), but the advert is uncannily like Nintendo's, it made me chuckle. I was hoping that they would focus the tech on games with depth, something that I had been hoping would happen ever since I first played a wii. The potential is there, it could be great if they don't just make a string of mini-game compilations(like wii sports)and then abandon it.

Give me a deep(and bloody)sword fighting game using this tech, and I'll be a very happy gamer...I don't need to play ping pong and golf anymore...

Random Bobcat:

I think you're seeing anger as your own kneejerk response to an expectation of it. Informed criticims doesn't mean anger, as a journalist I would think you would be above such quick assumptions.

Nobody's angry here - I'm certainly not.

If they were informed criticisms, then you might have a point. I honestly don't think they are.

Sony makes mistakes. Microsoft makes mistakes. Nintendo makes mistakes. Valve makes mistakes. Konami, Blizzard, Squeenix, etc - they all make mistakes. Calling a company out on what we perceive as a potential mistake is not evidence of bias.

SaintWaldo:

You call me a fanboy (and intimate that I may be an an idiot); I've never hidden the fact that I prefer Sony. I've also never spoken to others as though their choice of console was incorrect or revealed some lack of anything in their person or character. Maybe you shouldn't react so strongly to criticism if you'd like to avoid a few choice label of your own.

I'm not saying that you are an idiot. I'm saying that if you - generic you, if ANYBODY - thinks there's a conspiracy, then that's idiocy plain and simple.

I think the PS3's problem is that Sony's tried to use it to be a lot of things. For example they were hoping it would help catapult Blu-Ray into overtaking DVD as a format (it seemed anyway). This did not pan out, now they're trying to emulate the success of their competition in order to salvage something (and also prove that it can do everything it needs to do) but between the PS3 identity crisis and Sony's habit of making shit up in an attempt to look good which often results in hypocrisy on their part (force feedback, motion control, etc.), customer confidence probably is nowhere near where it was during the halcyon days of the PS2.

rembrandtqeinstein:

mrx19869:
[quote="rembrandtqeinstein" post="6.180282.5286698"]100% dead on. The ps3 was not only released last, had the glorious $600 price tag/quote]

yeah but how much money has xbox360 users payed since launch to get online and play with your friends? It seems like i have spent less on my ps3 5 years down the road because i payed a higher price tag up front.

Your point is moot, people who get a console to play online with friends WILL get a 360 just because Live is so much more advanced and the overall community is massively larger. Disclaimer, this only applies to north america.

i own an xbox360 as well, i find that with the larger community all i get is more crap...

Random Bobcat:

Unprofessional to see the least, very weak projection of emotion as a response when a sensible counter illstration eludes you.

Perhaps you might want to rein yourself in, you're looking foolish with such statements.

Yes, it's me who looks foolish. Definitely.

As for a rebuttal, Waldo's main complaint seems to be that the PS3 gets an unfair rap from gaming journalists, which may or may not be true, but doesn't really have a great deal to do with the article; he's just using it as a jumping off point for a rant about journalistic bias.

Does he have a point? Maybe, maybe not, but that's not what this article is about.

John Funk:

Nobody's angry here - I'm certainly not.

If they were informed criticisms, then you might have a point. I honestly don't think they are.

Sony makes mistakes. Microsoft makes mistakes. Nintendo makes mistakes. Valve makes mistakes. Konami, Blizzard, Squeenix, etc - they all make mistakes. Calling a company out on what we perceive as a potential mistake is not evidence of bias.

I'm glad you see that, Logan's insightful comments certainly don't aid matters.

I think Waldo's comments were bang on, certainly of higher calibre than Susan's in any case.

No it isn't, I look forward to seeing your future articles arguing baseless reasoning for each of the other consoles as well.

Logan Westbrook:

Random Bobcat:

Unprofessional to see the least, very weak projection of emotion as a response when a sensible counter illstration eludes you.

Perhaps you might want to rein yourself in, you're looking foolish with such statements.

Yes, it's me who looks foolish. Definitely.

As for a rebuttal, Waldo's main complaint seems to be that the PS3 gets an unfair rap from gaming journalists, which may or may not be true, but doesn't really have a great deal to do with the article; he's just using it as a jumping off point for a rant about journalistic bias.

Does he have a point? Maybe, maybe not, but that's not what this article is about.

So it is wrong to point out that an article (Which isn't really very well thought out because the basic premise is fundamentally flawed.) fits into a larger pattern with respect to coverage related to the Playstation 3?

Just an extra point of view from somebody I think Sony were targetting in their initial launch...

I have a PS3 (along with a PSP), also a Wii and my housemate has a 360. I chose the PS3 for the Blu-ray player, since then I've found the extra home entertainment functionality to be the best thing about it. I've got a Shuttle PC upstairs running a TVersity media server that plays directly onto my TV through the PS3. My PSP can connect up to this (and to BBC IPlayer) through the PS3 so I can watch TV and listen to my music on my PSP. The Blu-ray quality is great, up until recently it was about the same price as a dedicated player but had better firmware updates. Movies just look amazing.

Now, I admit I have a decent set games and I really enjoy them (God of War 3 is on pre-order as we speak), however I have a lot more Blu-rays and I don't think the PS3 would have survived on games alone. It's more expensive than the other consoles and the picture quality is a tiny bit better on the 360. By the same note, the 360 can only become more than a games console if you're willing to pay more for the extras than it would cost for a PS3.

So, there are three markets out there. If you want to just play games for an hour or so a week, get a Wii. If you want to just play games all day, get a 360. If you want to watch movies and play games all day, get a PS3.

Call me boring but when it comes to console wars, just get what you like the most and let the other guy do the same. As long as you enjoy yourselves, you both made the right choice.

SaintWaldo:
So, what does Natal say about XBox? I'd just like to know that the same standards are being applied.

It doesn't make sense to me to say Sony is confusing folks because they are following Wii with Move when MS is doing...the SAME thing with Natal.

Why is Sony described as "confused" for chasing the Wii's casual audience, when MS does the same thing?

Why was the press obsessed with Sony's motion controller name, and whether it was "exciting", but they've never asked MS to give us something other than the dev name?

I mean, come on, even the straw man in the article seems a bit out of bounds. Seriously, someone walks into a game store and we should believe they wouldn't be able to work out that the PS3 plays games? In my opinion, this so-called "identity crisis" is as much a factor of the (mostly western) press reaction as anything else. No, it doesn't matter that I'm a gamer. I was never confused about what I was buying. The people who I've recommended a PS3 to knew what they were getting (and so did the folks I recommended get a Wii or 360, BTW), a game machine that played the kind of games they wanted.

Where is the review of the XBox history? That machine seems a bit confused right now, as well. One example: they seem to have changed from "10 years is WAY too long for a console lifespan" to "well, you know, we think the XBox 360 will be around until 2015". THAT'S a reversal that has gone completely unnoticed by the western press. They have bought into Sony's lifespan plan. In fact, you can find Nintendo saying similar things about the lifespan of the Wii. Why isn't this as noteworthy as a retrospective of the PS3's marketing, and not the FIRST one at that, mind you? Just 2 years after the fact, XBox has been allowed to live down a 30% defect rate that bordered on fraud. But Sony is just CRAZY because 6 years ago they had a weird add. You see why that might seem a bit off-putting?

You see, it's news if it's new. We already know the early marketing was filled with hubris and silliness. That's not news. We also know ALL consoles are putting out motion controls, which in a regular world running on human logic means that none of them are confused about being gaming consoles that have motion controllers.

Why it's news for Sony, and apparently bad news from the tone of the write up, well, I guess that's wisdom for the US gaming press to create and deliver.

it's because everybody knows both the PS3 and XBOX360's motion controls are going to fizzle and die in a few months, so people are punish the PS3 for relentlessly advertising their motion controls
until they develop realistic feedback systems, gaming has been and forever will be controller based, and add ons like natal and ps3 motion are just to try to cash in on the unprecedented and undeserved success of the wii

also the gush of ps3 fanboy semen on this thread is starting to annoy me

Susan's article is great, but this thread is embarrassing compared to usual standard here on the escapist.

Reading comprehension is key, people.

Sony needs to realize that they can't makes a game system that will be massively successful among a casual audience AND massively successful among a hardcore audience. It's trying to be some kind of mutated deformed child of the Wii and Xbox 360.

The PS3 beats the Wii in hardcore titles by a long shot, I have no issue with the Wii but you have to admit that it's aimed more at a casual audience. The Xbox 360 has an equal amount of hardcore games as the PS3 and there is large debate about which is the better console. This was a good standpoint for a while, the Wii took in the casual audience while the PS3 and Xbox 360 fought over the hardcore audience. Now, Sony has fucked it all up by trying to win over the casual audience (which is already firmly owned by the Wii) AND fight Microsoft for the hardcore audience.

This is a message for Sony "IN YOUR WILDEST DREAMS, YOU WILL NEVER WIN THE BATTLE FOR THE CASUAL GAMERS AND HARDCORE GAMERS!!! CHOOSE YOUR FIGHT AND STICK WITH IT!!!".

The PS3 is a ninja, why do you think it only came out in black for so long?

When it first came out you could justify buying it to your non-gamer girlfriend / wife by saying it's for Blu-Ray DVDs and photos. Later, with PayTV you could say you could run your TV through it.

Then it's in the house and your GF/wife has to use the controller to change channels and stuff, she is learning how to use it by stealth. Then BAM!! You spring Little Big Planet on her and suddenly you're both gaming.

Now it's a few years later, hopefully you're still with your GF/wife and starting to have some kids, so the PS3 steps up again with motion control to stop you getting a Wii ... Sony wants the PS3 to be the only console or multimedia device you need.

When it sets its mind to it, the PS3 can do everything the Wii can do (once it has the motion controller), and everything the XBox360 can do, and then it can still do more besides. Nothing wrong with putting that message out there. Furthermore there is no sense in paiting itself into a corner.

When kids have to ask what a Wii or an Xbox is, the PS3 will still be around.

SaintWaldo:
So, what does Natal say about XBox? I'd just like to know that the same standards are being applied.

It doesn't make sense to me to say Sony is confusing folks because they are following Wii with Move when MS is doing...the SAME thing with Natal.

Why is Sony described as "confused" for chasing the Wii's casual audience, when MS does the same thing?

Why was the press obsessed with Sony's motion controller name, and whether it was "exciting", but they've never asked MS to give us something other than the dev name?

I mean, come on, even the straw man in the article seems a bit out of bounds. Seriously, someone walks into a game store and we should believe they wouldn't be able to work out that the PS3 plays games? In my opinion, this so-called "identity crisis" is as much a factor of the (mostly western) press reaction as anything else. No, it doesn't matter that I'm a gamer. I was never confused about what I was buying. The people who I've recommended a PS3 to knew what they were getting (and so did the folks I recommended get a Wii or 360, BTW), a game machine that played the kind of games they wanted.

Where is the review of the XBox history? That machine seems a bit confused right now, as well. One example: they seem to have changed from "10 years is WAY too long for a console lifespan" to "well, you know, we think the XBox 360 will be around until 2015". THAT'S a reversal that has gone completely unnoticed by the western press. They have bought into Sony's lifespan plan. In fact, you can find Nintendo saying similar things about the lifespan of the Wii. Why isn't this as noteworthy as a retrospective of the PS3's marketing, and not the FIRST one at that, mind you? Just 2 years after the fact, XBox has been allowed to live down a 30% defect rate that bordered on fraud. But Sony is just CRAZY because 6 years ago they had a weird add. You see why that might seem a bit off-putting?

You see, it's news if it's new. We already know the early marketing was filled with hubris and silliness. That's not news. We also know ALL consoles are putting out motion controls, which in a regular world running on human logic means that none of them are confused about being gaming consoles that have motion controllers.

Why it's news for Sony, and apparently bad news from the tone of the write up, well, I guess that's wisdom for the US gaming press to create and deliver.

Did you read the article?
Sony copied the Wii's controller to a T, and even ripped off the commericals.

While Natal has no controller, and really only has one thing in common, and that's that they somehow use your body other than to press buttons.

It's typical fanboy defense mechanism that snaps somewhere in your brain, when even the slightest bit of criticism is given towards your console of choice, it's instantly. "NO, THIS IS WRONG. THE OTHER CONSOLE IS WORSE, WHY DONT YOU MAKE FUN OF THEM?"

Welshlad:
*snip

Pevva:
*snip

Just wanted to welcome you to The Escapist, it's good to come out of the lurking shadows ahahaha. Enjoy the forums!

hrm. Interesting. My wife and I loves our PS3. It's played daily by at least one of us. I think they should market it to hip young childless couples. Though that would require more multiplayer games (multiplayer, NOT online)

I think the PS3 is like a uneducated middle child, jack of all trades, master of none. The foundations for a great gaming system is there, but Sony made a lot of questionable choices during it's lifetime so far and fucked it more than they know.

Pevva:
The PS3 is a ninja, why do you think it only came out in black for so long?

When it first came out you could justify buying it to your non-gamer girlfriend / wife by saying it's for Blu-Ray DVDs and photos. Later, with PayTV you could say you could run your TV through it.

Then it's in the house and your GF/wife has to use the controller to change channels and stuff, she is learning how to use it by stealth. Then BAM!! You spring Little Big Planet on her and suddenly you're both gaming.

Now it's a few years later, hopefully you're still with your GF/wife and starting to have some kids, so the PS3 steps up again with motion control to stop you getting a Wii ... Sony wants the PS3 to be the only console or multimedia device you need.

Good point. This has always been the overarching goal for the PS3. It was never targeted solely at gamers though they are a big part. Sony has never been as big into the "hardcore" market as Microsoft despite what some people may think. They have always straddled the middle of the road (Just look at the PSN store and some of their bigger past franchises if you don't believe me.) when it came to the markets they were trying to hit.

Mcface:

SaintWaldo:
So, what does Natal say about XBox? I'd just like to know that the same standards are being applied.

It doesn't make sense to me to say Sony is confusing folks because they are following Wii with Move when MS is doing...the SAME thing with Natal.

Why is Sony described as "confused" for chasing the Wii's casual audience, when MS does the same thing?

Why was the press obsessed with Sony's motion controller name, and whether it was "exciting", but they've never asked MS to give us something other than the dev name?

I mean, come on, even the straw man in the article seems a bit out of bounds. Seriously, someone walks into a game store and we should believe they wouldn't be able to work out that the PS3 plays games? In my opinion, this so-called "identity crisis" is as much a factor of the (mostly western) press reaction as anything else. No, it doesn't matter that I'm a gamer. I was never confused about what I was buying. The people who I've recommended a PS3 to knew what they were getting (and so did the folks I recommended get a Wii or 360, BTW), a game machine that played the kind of games they wanted.

Where is the review of the XBox history? That machine seems a bit confused right now, as well. One example: they seem to have changed from "10 years is WAY too long for a console lifespan" to "well, you know, we think the XBox 360 will be around until 2015". THAT'S a reversal that has gone completely unnoticed by the western press. They have bought into Sony's lifespan plan. In fact, you can find Nintendo saying similar things about the lifespan of the Wii. Why isn't this as noteworthy as a retrospective of the PS3's marketing, and not the FIRST one at that, mind you? Just 2 years after the fact, XBox has been allowed to live down a 30% defect rate that bordered on fraud. But Sony is just CRAZY because 6 years ago they had a weird add. You see why that might seem a bit off-putting?

You see, it's news if it's new. We already know the early marketing was filled with hubris and silliness. That's not news. We also know ALL consoles are putting out motion controls, which in a regular world running on human logic means that none of them are confused about being gaming consoles that have motion controllers.

Why it's news for Sony, and apparently bad news from the tone of the write up, well, I guess that's wisdom for the US gaming press to create and deliver.

Did you read the article?
Sony copied the Wii's controller to a T, and even ripped off the commericals.

While Natal has no controller, and really only has one thing in common, and that's that they somehow use your body other than to press buttons.

It's typical fanboy defense mechanism that snaps somewhere in your brain, when even the slightest bit of criticism is given towards your console of choice, it's instantly. "NO, THIS IS WRONG. THE OTHER CONSOLE IS WORSE, WHY DONT YOU MAKE FUN OF THEM?"

Hmm Nintendo wasn't the first company to do motion controls you know. No one seems to be complaining that Microsoft "copied" the DC controller or that Microsoft "copied" the eyetoy for Natal.....

You sound like you are projecting your own "fanboy" reaction on to someone else.

i would be nice to get back on topic.....

the PS3 is not going through an identity crisis. it knows who it is.. its going to be everything.. that means

if you want to
play a intense game you can
play a not intecse game you can
play a game without a dualshock controller you can
play a game with a dualshock you can
watch a movie you can
watch a blue way movie you can
access the internet you can

sony marketing has stayed relatively the same, it has shown the features
now that it can do more there are new marketing...

ace_of_something:
hrm. Interesting. My wife and I loves our PS3. It's played daily by at least one of us. I think they should market it to hip young childless couples. Though that would require more multiplayer games (multiplayer, NOT online)

thats not what they want to do, they want to let people know that if you want to do it, you can do it on the ps3, because the ps3 does eveything

I don't really want to get into the thick of the argument here, but can those lauding the "It only does everything" campaign really not see how that is bad marketing? If you tell someone that an object does everything they're going to react with confusion because "everything" by itself doesn't mean anything. In the end they have to take the time to explain what "everything" means to the viewer anyway.
A different example:
"The new Ford Vehicle, it only does everything."
"What does that mean?"
"Well, 'everything' means that it gets good gas mileage, has a lot of cargo space, seats four, and has a great stereo!"

What's more is when you claim something can do everything people will always find things it can't do.

"Can it go off-road? Can it drive around a race-track? Can use it to tow my boat? Can it..."
"Well no, it can't do 'everything-everything' only what we say is everything."

Then they have to keep adding things onto the device, like motion controls and who knows what else later down the line, to ensure it does actually do everything. Mind, that isn't really a bad thing, but the tone makes Sony sound like a late-night infomercial to me. I'm waiting for them to say, "but wait there's more!"

SaintWaldo:
So, what does Natal say about XBox? I'd just like to know that the same standards are being applied.

It doesn't make sense to me to say Sony is confusing folks because they are following Wii with Move when MS is doing...the SAME thing with Natal.

Why is Sony described as "confused" for chasing the Wii's casual audience, when MS does the same thing?

The difference is that Natal is actually a unique interface. Yeah it's motion control, but arguing that it's copying the Wii is like saying that the 360 controller is copying the Gamecube controller. They both have buttons, sure, but otherwise they're completely different. Meanwhile you have Sony's entry into the motion control market, and it's basically like they just re-skinned a Wiimote. It's classic Sony copying the good ideas because they're short on coming-up with their own.

WhiteTigerShiro:

SaintWaldo:
So, what does Natal say about XBox? I'd just like to know that the same standards are being applied.

It doesn't make sense to me to say Sony is confusing folks because they are following Wii with Move when MS is doing...the SAME thing with Natal.

Why is Sony described as "confused" for chasing the Wii's casual audience, when MS does the same thing?

The difference is that Natal is actually a unique interface. Yeah it's motion control, but arguing that it's copying the Wii is like saying that the 360 controller is copying the Gamecube controller. They both have buttons, sure, but otherwise they're completely different. Meanwhile you have Sony's entry into the motion control market, and it's basically like they just re-skinned a Wiimote. It's classic Sony copying the good ideas because they're short on coming-up with their own.

Which is why Nintendo wasn't the first group to do motion controllers? Which is why the Natal system (Using cameras for detecting motion.) has been worked on for years outside of Microsoft? RRRRRIIIIIGGGHTTT.....

Cheers Doxcology, funny that I de-claoked to be a fanboy eh.

DRD 1812:
I don't really want to get into the thick of the argument here, but can those lauding the "It only does everything" campaign really not see how that is bad marketing? If you tell someone that an object does everything they're going to react with confusion because "everything" by itself doesn't mean anything. In the end they have to take the time to explain what "everything" means to the viewer anyway.
A different example:
"The new Ford Vehicle, it only does everything."
"What does that mean?"
"Well, 'everything' means that it gets good gas mileage, has a lot of cargo space, seats four, and has a great stereo!"

What's more is when you claim something can do everything people will always find things it can't do.

"Can it go off-road? Can it drive around a race-track? Can use it to tow my boat? Can it..."
"Well no, it can't do 'everything-everything' only what we say is everything."

Then they have to keep adding things onto the device, like motion controls and who knows what else later down the line, to ensure it does actually do everything. Mind, that isn't really a bad thing, but the tone makes Sony sound like a late-night infomercial to me. I'm waiting for them to say, "but wait there's more!"

what sensible things can the PS3 not do?
do you buy a ford just by listing to the marketing? no you do independent research
again

marketing is only meant to push people in a direction. after that it is the consumers responsibility to find out what the product can or can not do

this article shifts the blame to sony when the blame is on the consumer.

Susan Arendt:

mrx19869:
does anybody know if this "Susan Arendt" the author of this post owns a PS3, and if so what model?

Yes, I do, an original launch model. Ah, sweet, sweet BC....

Also, I don't quite understand why people think I am confused about a PS3's capabilities. I also state quite clearly that I think the PS3 is a great machine, and simply wish that Sony would do it justice by crafting a clear message for it.

The thing is, "it only does everything" is a pretty clear message. I mean, I've never been turned off by the Iphone or the PC or the Microwave because they had too many settings. I mean, I can't speak for you, but personally, 5 to 10 functions on a machine isn't confusing to me especially when they are all under the umbrella of "entertainment." It's like getting confused at "movies" because it plays both sound AND video at the same time.

ThisNewGuy:

Susan Arendt:

mrx19869:
does anybody know if this "Susan Arendt" the author of this post owns a PS3, and if so what model?

Yes, I do, an original launch model. Ah, sweet, sweet BC....

Also, I don't quite understand why people think I am confused about a PS3's capabilities. I also state quite clearly that I think the PS3 is a great machine, and simply wish that Sony would do it justice by crafting a clear message for it.

The thing is, "it only does everything" is a pretty clear message. I mean, I've never been turned off by the Iphone or the PC or the Microwave because they had too many settings. I mean, I can't speak for you, but personally, 5 to 10 functions on a machine isn't confusing to me especially when they are all under the umbrella of "entertainment." It's like getting confused at "movies" because it plays both sound AND video at the same time.

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU
for being a sensible person who understands the word everything...

mrx19869:

ThisNewGuy:

Susan Arendt:

mrx19869:
does anybody know if this "Susan Arendt" the author of this post owns a PS3, and if so what model?

Yes, I do, an original launch model. Ah, sweet, sweet BC....

Also, I don't quite understand why people think I am confused about a PS3's capabilities. I also state quite clearly that I think the PS3 is a great machine, and simply wish that Sony would do it justice by crafting a clear message for it.

The thing is, "it only does everything" is a pretty clear message. I mean, I've never been turned off by the Iphone or the PC or the Microwave because they had too many settings. I mean, I can't speak for you, but personally, 5 to 10 functions on a machine isn't confusing to me especially when they are all under the umbrella of "entertainment." It's like getting confused at "movies" because it plays both sound AND video at the same time.

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU
for being a sensible person who understands the word everything...

The question should then be "is this the best method of advertising the product?" Some people are intimidated by having a bajillion options, I personally would love to see Sony just friggin list everything the PS3 does that the competition doesn't. However I know that doing that might not make a good commercial even if it is informative. Maybe something like the Motorolla Droid commercials would work. By the same token I would like to see Microsoft talk more about the 360's functionality in commercials.

Your tagline for this one amused me :)

On another note I agree. It seems it's had a serious case of disassociative identity disorder. Each of it's new identities are separate and not very easily combined to focus in on what the machine truly is: the centerpiece for your entertainment. I have a friend who's job is to program special features on Blu-ray discs, he says the PS3 is still the top Blu-ray player on the market and one of the cheapest. The games I've played on another buddies are phenominal. Sure it won't play PS2 games anymore (darn you Sony!) but it does play dvd's and Blu-ray's which helps you not need to rebuy the sizable movie collection you already have. You can go online, and Netflix streams directly to the device for instant play of 10,000's of films and television shows. Let it find it's identity and prove itself on those merits!

shadow skill:

mrx19869:

ThisNewGuy:

Susan Arendt:

mrx19869:
does anybody know if this "Susan Arendt" the author of this post owns a PS3, and if so what model?

Yes, I do, an original launch model. Ah, sweet, sweet BC....

Also, I don't quite understand why people think I am confused about a PS3's capabilities. I also state quite clearly that I think the PS3 is a great machine, and simply wish that Sony would do it justice by crafting a clear message for it.

The thing is, "it only does everything" is a pretty clear message. I mean, I've never been turned off by the Iphone or the PC or the Microwave because they had too many settings. I mean, I can't speak for you, but personally, 5 to 10 functions on a machine isn't confusing to me especially when they are all under the umbrella of "entertainment." It's like getting confused at "movies" because it plays both sound AND video at the same time.

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU
for being a sensible person who understands the word everything...

The question should then be "is this the best method of advertising the product?" Some people are intimidated by having a bajillion options, I personally would love to see Sony just friggin list everything the PS3 does that the competition doesn't. However I know that doing that might not make a good commercial even if it is informative. Maybe something like the Motorolla Droid commercials would work. By the same token I would like to see Microsoft talk more about the 360's functionality in commercials.

yeah but at what point is it the consumers responsibility to do some independent research?

shadow skill:
The question should then be "is this the best method of advertising the product?" Some people are intimidated by having a bajillion options, I personally would love to see Sony just friggin list everything the PS3 does that the competition doesn't. However I know that doing that might not make a good commercial even if it is informative. Maybe something like the Motorolla Droid commercials would work. By the same token I would like to see Microsoft talk more about the 360's functionality in commercials.

I don't know. I've yet to see people criticize a product for being too flexible. I mean, when digital cameras started to take video, there was no backlash for it, and it didn't have a mass epidemic of world confusion. The point I'm trying to make is that motion control addition will only confuse people and muddle the message as much as a guitar hero controller did. I seriously don't think adding 1 peripheral controller would suddenly make everyone confused about the functionality of the PS3.

As far as "marketing," I'm not a marketing expert, and I'm sure neither is the author or most people in this forum, but in my opinion, showing multiple users easily using each functionality of the PS3 followed by the tagline of its function and followed by the interest of "it only does everything," doesn't sound confusing. Maybe if the author or people in the forum could cite a specific problematic ad where Sony was not exactly on message as to a specific functionality, then I could better understand exactly what is being criticized here as far as marketing goes.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Your account does not have posting rights. If you feel this is in error, please contact an administrator. (ID# 67218)