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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
No the problem is just that, deep down you just love PS3 and envy all those who have a PS3. But no owner of PS3 desires a CrapBox.
Dont worry woodie someday you'll have extra 50$ to buy PS3 too with which you will get all the crapbox does plus lopt more options right out of the box like
.. you can go either wired or wireless network
.. you can either download movies or watch crisp Blu-Ray for 1$ rental.
.. Play games or watch HD movies or DVD movies or download games
Oh ..my my .. thats freaking whole lot of options to the consumer.
Oh forgot to mention, it wont take a dump on you either in the middle of game or movie.
Work hard next year and earn extra 50$ then you wont have to scratch your butt everytime you see a PS3 owner
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.
Moreover I dont have problem paying for wireless controller and network. I pay for the convenience and its more practical.
On the other hand you crib about saving money, so you should boycott crapbox for charging you for wireless controller and network fee and in general the whole crapbox they give you for the money they take from you