GranTurismoHelperMax said:
2. I can't argue with that bcus of Dark Knight sales but here is the thing. You can buy a standalone blu-ray player for what? 200-300 dollars now which is considerably less then a ps3. So that shows whoever would buy a ps3 just for the blu-ray player have a cheaper option and that in these "tough times", blu-ray isnt that important.
3. Well I can't argue with that. The PS3 has some good games but its competition that drove it away. The 360 gaming library is so strong in fact no1 really wants a console with a weaker library. I can tell you that i havent seen a PS3 ad that says "free online on PSN". They should include that. Sony needs to better advertise their exclusives and it doesnt seem to appeal to the new gamers and former gamers. And the fact that the PS2 had a very strong gaming library, it would make sense to include backwards compatibility. But they took it away so those ps2 owners who wants to continue to play their ps2 games for years to come might not get a chance if their ps2 breaks and they wouldnt want to spend an extra $130.
Overall, the article has 2 good point and a 3rd point that needs more time to reconsider. But the PS3 doesnt have that time now. It needs its biggest games + a price cut to send sales spiking. But I think if Sony focused to advertise the PS3 to be more of a "game console" then a entertainment system with blu-ray. If they focused it as a entertainment system, the PS3 has way more competition then the Wii and 360. Its going up against the 2 other consoles and blu-ray standalone players.
|
If you buy stand alone BR player and then x360 arcade then you just spent 400$ on console without HDD and paid online gaming.
With 3 I agree that Sony can't advertise it's strongest points properly.
PROUD MEMBER OF THE PSP RPG FAN CLUB







