News Sony wants profit, not market share

http://blog.us.playstation.com/2007/10/03/uncharted-drakes-fortune-update/comment-page-2/#comments

Commend #97, the packaging was never updated to reflect the change

 

the PS3 is currently profitable. nobody said their strategy now has to be the same as their launch strategy.

 

Gareth, I was wrong. It does run at 720p natively, but upscales to 1080i (on my TV it does). As for Killzone 2, it runs at 1080i natively. GT5: Prologue is 1080p natively and God of War III will be running at 1080p natively. I can only imagine Uncharted 2 will run at the very least 1080i natively, but we will have to see. I was just trying to prove a point in that a $400 computer would NOT run games like these at those resolutions.

http://boardsus.playstation.com/pla...read.id=56462&view=by_date_ascending&page=135
http://blog.wired.com/games/2007/03/cory_barlog_god.html

 

you have a point of course. i'm just poking fun at them; their marketing guys seem to change their tune about what the ps3 is 'all about' on a monthly basis

 

^ yes, sony's marketing team does seem to be a little unfocused, don't they? and despite all this talk of marketing's current strategy, i can honestly say i have never seen a piece of PS3 advertising, save for blog posts discussing sony advertising strategy. probably the best way to improve profit at this point is to just stop paying the marketers

devdevil, i read somewhere that uncharted2 will be running at 1080p. i really hope that's true, drakes fortune looked pretty sweet even at 720.

 

Tried too hard? Yeah, they did try hard to bring a powerful, reliable system to consumers and because they took risks they ended up paying for it in the long-run. Also, at $400 (US) for a PS3 and possibly $300 by next week the PS3 is a great buy. Please show me a $400 PC that can run games the same way PS3 runs Killzone 2 (1080i natively) or Uncharted (1080i natively) and I will be impressed. A PS3 will last you a very long time. A PC will not, period. You will end up spending money on a entirely new rig in the next 3 years once that new socket, new memory, new FSB, etc. comes available. Don't get me wrong, PC's are great (as I want a new rig myself), but to compare PC vs. console isn't completely fair IMO.[/QUOTE]

Give me a break, show me a PS3 that has a library of games that PC has, or a PS3 that can browse the web, edit photos, video editing, and do all the tings a PC can etc... Then I will be impressed. Do not bring up price, if you neglect to mention why PC's cost more, they do a helll of a lot more, plus a 5-600 dollar PC now can be built that would max out crysis, not hadly expensive for what you get with a PC.

 

You compared the entirety of Xbox Live to.....LittleBigPlanet for PSN? Here let me try. Saint's Row was so laggy online on Xbox Live that obviously the PSN is better because all of my Resistance matches were flawless.

 

Lepermessiah, my argument had to do with how well games could be put out on-screen for the price, as well as having the ability to play BR movies and be practically silent while doing it.... (I think I know a PC can do more things than a PS3 can thank you, but that wouldn't be my point in purchasing it). Also, PS3's can browse the web (especially now with Flash 9 support). You can edit photos, but only with the basic stuff of course.

Please show me a rig that has been built for $400-$600 that can run Crysis at 1680 x 1050 with everything on Maximum and that can play BR movies. If you can, I will be very surprised.

 

Nobody wants to buy a Wii then, it's gonna have Physx soon, awesome, bringing Hollywood graphics to life! Ebay it is then

 

You know, I doubt the PS3 could play Crysis maxed at 1080p either. This is Crysis we're talking about here, even graphics card that alone cost more than a PS3 struggle.

But seriously, can we move on from the PC vs PS3 vs 360 argument? As outlined in many of the posts, it makes no difference at all what any of the consoles/devices can actually achieve, it simply boils down to what the mass market percieves them to be able to achieve. That is what drives business and keeps industries afloat. The general perception is XBox Live is a better for online play than PSN, and regardless of what the truth is, it's up to Sony to convince the world otherwise. Something they have barely even attempted.

This isn't about the PS3 being a bad machine (it isn't, it's an awesome piece of technology), it's about Sony being crap at business.

 

well, i go on what i've experienced, and for a flagship game such as LBP i'd have expected them to be a little better. i also take umbrage at the complete lack of integration with the service; it's getting better but for the most part MS provides many frameworks for online that sony developers have to develop from scratch.

(yeah, i know, gears of war 2 had serious issues with online too)

 

Bauul, I wasn't trying to say PS3 could run Crysis at 1080p. It was the moral of proving to me that a PC could be purchased for $400-600 that could run Crysis at Maximum settings at 1680 x 1050 (not even 1080i).

@Fod, from my experience, XBL and PSN are equal based on how I use them. I have had the same amount of issues with PS3 titles as I have with 360's. I still love how PSN can allow for more players online than Live, but it still has a ways to go to match its offerings.