Fri, Aug 1, 2014, 12:50 AM EDT - U.S. Markets open in 8 hrs 40 mins

Recent

% | $
Click the to save as a favorite.

Sony Corporation Message Board

  • cashfreshzzz cashfreshzzz Aug 18, 2009 7:27 PM Flag

    why is sony debranding playstation?

    why the FUCK would you call the Slim Playstation 3. "PS3"?

    The value and weight of the Playstation name is probably the most valuable consumer Product name in history, there is virtually no that does not know or has not heard what a Playstation is or does. So why would you throw that away and use "PS3" Not to mention the branding on "PS3", you cant see it, it is etched in black on a black surface. Which moron thought this up and which moron ok'd this? And which moron thought it would be smart to give it a matte finish and an ugly design? My dog could have designed a better looking console. Skulls should be bashed in, since its very obvious someone at Sony is desperately and purposely trying to hurt the Playstation business.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • They're calling is a PS3 because it is replacing the current models. Its design is the way it is due to cost-cutting. Matte finish, just like the 360. Less appealing construction, just like the 360. Scrapped features to sell cheaper, just like the 360.

      It's quite hilarious really. I'm reading several forums, and everybody is complaining about what this new redesign lacks what older models have: backwards compatibility, Linux install, gloss finish, 4 USB ports, etc. Well duh, that's why its price has been cut to $300. Now everybody is complaining about what this new system lacks to the older $500+ systems. LOL. Like I've always been saying, people will not pony up to paying a couple hundred bucks more for system which gives you so much more for your money than a Wii or 360. Unfortunately, Americans chose to go cheap and buy the RRoD system which they've probably had replaced several times by now... and that is why the 360 has the larger games library... because people were too cheap.

      • 1 Reply to wealthy_janitor
      • The slim look better... Smaller, lighter and cheaper... and it's still plays a sparse selection of games. Instead of losing $50 on each unit, Sony probably loses about $100 per unit after the price cut. Too bad Sony can't REALLY cut some costs and get rid of the blu-ray player. Sony could probably sell it for $200 or less right now.

        Not only is the PS3 price too high, the exclusive game selection isn't that great, although I must say, it's getting better.

        I still have my original 360 and I've never gotten the RRoD problem (crossing fingers), although, many of the people I play with have had the problem. Nice of Microsoft to extend the warranty to 3 years and fix the 360 cost free to the consumer... I sure you would not see the likes of that from Sony customer support.

        What does a PS3 give me (besides less available games) for a couple hundred bucks more than a 360?
        1. Blu-ray - I don't need / want blu-ray. Wasted money.
        2. Wireless - I don't need wireless - Wasted money.
        3. HDMI - Nice. 360 has it too.
        3. 120GB hard drive. This is a nice feature. I think the 360 is lacking a little in this department. Charging $150 for a 120GB hard drive is a bit steep considering I can buy 1TB for about $80.
        4. PSN - It's pretty much a joke compared to XBOX Live, but it is free. I guess you get what you pay for.
        5. Am I missing something? I bought my GAME CONSOLE to play games, not to watch over priced Blu-Ray movies... If I ever did want to watch Blu-Ray, I would purchase a stand alone player (soon to be under $100).

        North America Install Base (hardware)
        360 - 18,000,000
        PS3 - 9,000,000

        North America Software/Hardware ratio
        360 - 182,000,000 ( 10.13 games / user )
        PS3 - 75,000,000 ( 8.27 games / user )

        Sad, sad story for Sony.

        -Woodie

    • I think that's just it... Everyone knows what a PS3 is, so just call it a PS3. The people that doesn't know what it is will still be asking for a Play Station, but who cares. Who cares that's it's black on black in your living room sitting in an entertainment center... you already bought it; marketing is pretty much done at that point.

      -Woodie

    • Yeah I guess you are right.
      Just like I dont understand why Microsoft didnt make CrapBox360 with wired remote controls instead of wireless. Bet they could have saved some money to the customers by going that way. Or atleast they should have given an option to the consumer to buy CrapBox360 with wired remote for little cheaper

    • Different argument, but nice try...

      I'm just saying, the Wireless adapter is optional on the 360... If you want/need to spend the extra money to buy one, you can. If you have a PS3 with a wired connection to you entertainment unit, you don't really "need" wireless. Plus, wired is almost ALWAYS better than wireless... less/no lag (especially if WEP 128 encryption - FACT).

      -Woodie

    • Its not different at all. Basically the whole argument is nonsense.
      You still didnt answer why Wireless Remote Control is not optional on 360?
      If you want/need to spend extra money to buy one, you can.

    • Duh. Because wireless controllers make sense. I don't know anyone who WANTS/NEEDS a wired controller (more importantly wants) laying around their living room. Who knows, a wired controller might actually cost more now since you have to: Make an "input" port with connector to controller... add the cost of copper and there you go.

      However, in the case of the built in wireless adapter, there already has to be an "Ethernet card" installed (not optional in either console). Adding wireless components to an already functioning Ethernet card adds expense to the consumer (you). Why add junk that a lot of people don't need and make them pay for it?

      I'm just saying, the PS3 could have been much less expensive from the get go (instead of trying to compete by taking away things with the release of every model - ie PS2 compatability, USB ports).

      If the CrapBox360 is so crappy, it's amazing that it's outsold the PS3 by 8 Million units worldwide (I know, I know... the 360 was released earlier). ...wait for it... The PS3 software ratio is 6.25 units while the 360 software ratio is 7.89 worldwide. What does that mean? It means that based on Total hardware sales (over time), the 360 owner purchased approximately 1.64 more games (it's even higher in North America). ...and the 360 has accomplished this while having the RROD failure problem. Wow. What does that say about the PS3?

      ...maybe consumers like options after all.
      ...maybe consumers actually like to play games on their "game" console.

      -Woodie

    • Blah blah blah ..
      I still don't see the answer to my question .. you start throwing stupid statements almost in every thread towards the end.

      The under lying point that you were bitching about is saving money for the consumer(you). So why in the first place they moved to the wireless technology for remotes when they already had the cheaper wired tech in previous CrapBox. Running wire in the rooms is just cosmetic thing and doesn't affect system performance or enhance/reduce your game experience. So they should have given wireless as an expensive option for those who want to spend more money.

      ...maybe consumers like options after all.
      ...maybe consumers actually like to play games on their "game" console and watch blue-ray movies also. Maybe consumer want something that even looks nicer in their living room also instead on putting crapbox.

      I dont know what remote village you live in and what cheap slow internet you use, but off late wireless is as fast as wired that 99% average consumers wont even feel the diference

      I don't know anyone who WANTS/NEEDS a Ethernet cable running around in their living room either.

    • You might have to re-read my response if you didn't "get" the answer the first time... It's probably more expensive to have a wired controlled than wireless... Not the case for Ethernet.

      ...maybe consumers like options after all.
      ...maybe consumers actually like to play games on their "game" console
      ...nicer looking? Purely taste preference. They both look good (but if that's all you got).
      ...I've used wireless for gaming and so have many friends I know. It's only a matter of time before they switch back to hard wire. Believe it. Look it up. FPS in a multiplayer environment (10+ players) doesn't need ANY latency... and trust me, using a WEP encrypted wireless LAN provides just that, latency.
      ...my house is wired nicely so I don't have any cables running around the house. Maybe you should upgrade your entertainment system.

      I think the hardware and software sales pretty much speak for themselves... PS3 is a distant THIRD this console generation. THIRD. Please dispute that?

      -Woodie

    • No you said "probably more expensive", how come you get defensive when talking about crapbox? Its always expensive to switch from wired to wireless controllers. And crapbox could have saved the consumer some money by keeping the old wired controller plus consumer willalso save on the batterys. See so basically its the consumer (you) who is given no choice.

      ...maybe consumers like options after all.
      ...maybe consumers actually like to play games on their "game" console plus they can use it for other media purposes and watching movies in HD also, how cool is that
      ...nicer looking? Purely taste preference. Anybody can judge the taste preference of peoplewho like CrapBox.
      ...I've used wireless for gaming and so have many friends I know. I am stillwaiting for the timeto come when any of them switch to wired network now. Believe it. Look it up. FPS in a multiplayer environment (10+ players) doesn't need ANY latency... and trust me, using a WEP encrypted wireless LAN there is minimal latency, given you are using broardband, not lameass DSL.
      Thats a decent thought, I guess CrapBox should print this on the box "...Your house shouldbe wired nicely so you don't have any cables running around the house. Maybe you should upgrade your entertainment system and spend hundreds of dollar, but you will save 20$ because we dont have the capability to put wireless in our box"

    • My first sentence, "Duh. Because wireless controllers make sense. I don't know anyone who WANTS/NEEDS a wired controller (more importantly wants) laying around their living room." The built in Wireless Ethernet is purely option because it redundant (Ethernet and Wireless Ethernet). Got it yet?

      Minimal latency is still LATENCY. Therefore, you have LATENCY.

      I think the hardware and software sales pretty much speak for themselves... PS3 is a distant THIRD this console generation. THIRD. Please dispute that?

      ..coming soon to a 360 near you, "1080P instant downloads through XBOX Live". We already have streaming Netflix on the 360...

      -Woodie

    • View More Messages
 
SNE
18.43+0.90(+5.13%)Jul 31 4:06 PMEDT

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.
GoPro, Inc.
NasdaqGSThu, Jul 31, 2014 4:00 PM EDT
eHealth, Inc.
NasdaqGSThu, Jul 31, 2014 3:59 PM EDT