And here's the thing. Who's to say that by the time the PS3 launches the Xbox 360 won't have games bundled with the sytem? That's $60-$120 tacked onto the value of the 360 right there. We're not even including headset and component cables that come standard that aren't in the PS3. A chart like this is could be rendered useless before it even hits the retail channel. Very poor judgement on Sony's part. It would have been better to not even acknowledge the 360 IMO.
Microsoft getting ready for legal action..
- Thread starter MasterDisaster
- Start date
"Future".
You have to acknowledge your competitor and point out where your product beats the competition for your consumers.
It is normally based on facts NOW, not the future. If MS needs bundled games to improve the value of their system, Sony will be laughing when they update their comparison sheet. They will just leave out what's in the box, and deal with what is in the hardware. They beat MS there completely by $300 (Hard Disk and HD-DVD drive).
Speng.
In the marketing world a lot of times context is assumed (and most of the time anyone with half a brain can figure it out) -- that's part of the "power" and creative liberty of marketing/pr in the world of today.
Rarely is the entire context explicitly said. Most advertisements today make often crazy claims but completely neglect to mention how they came about that or in what context they should be taken. I'm not going to get pissy at Sony for leaving out that part when the entire marketing/pr world does the same type of shit -- it's, sadly, common practice. If I got mad at Sony, I'd have to get mad at about a thousand other companies out there as well, lest I be a hypocrite, for being disingenuous (I am sort of, but not enough to vocalize it!). I don't expect marketing to be entirely truthful until laws become a lot more strict -- I sure as hell wouldn't expect any company to play nice just because playing dirty is frowned upon by their competition. In absolute terms, it is disingenuous, there is no way around that... but compared to other advertising, it didn't seem very noteworthy to me.
I'm actually surprised they behaved as well as they did -- they mentioned 1080p support coming to 360, and didn't even try to claim $250 for 5 years of XB Live!
I'm not saying this isn't a lame attempt (because it certainly is), I'm just saying doesn't really warrant 3 pages and trash-blogs posting about it.
Which parts are incorrect? I had only previously seen the price comparison not the "feature list" but having had a quick browse of that I couldn't find any false information there, maybe I’m mistaken, I don’t know.
Wasn't this set of charts part of a larger marketing document given to retailers? Why have engadget only selected these two pages to showcase?
On the context issue I thought it was immediately clear what they were trying to portray namely feature vs. feature (obviously titled to concentrate on what PS3 has exclusive). I still don't get the fuss over this. Did none of you expect this? It was one of the easiest marketing strategies Sony had available to them with such a feature-rich console.
Chris123234
Regular
Its titled console comparison. It compares the consoles (aka their features, since that was identifies the consoles as different) and points out what you would have to add to make them comparable. Pretty straight forward from what I'm seeing. It isn't titled "What's needed to make the console play a game" or "how to have a comparable gaming experience".
Last edited by a moderator:
These PR threads don't really warrant any response!
These PR threads don't really warrant any response!
Can't disagree with that. =p
scooby_dooby
Legend
Oh come on, a presentation at E3, the worlds largest gaming show covered by gaming and mainstream media worldwide is in no way comparable to an internet article, posted on a handful of websites. *shakes head*
DeathKnight
Regular
FYI, this thing was actually published and distributed...
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4632672&postcount=1
Note that the "Requires users to buy" cell for the PS3 section was conveniently changed to "Comes standard with".
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4632672&postcount=1
Note that the "Requires users to buy" cell for the PS3 section was conveniently changed to "Comes standard with".
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm not sure how else they could put it other than the fact that they do "come standard with" those features.
PR threads are fun
Bigus Dickus
Regular
The worst part is that I'm pretty sure this PR sheet was worked and reworked to say just what Sony wanted to. That's the modus operandi of FUD marketing - figure out how to portray the competition as poorly as possible (misleading or blantant lying would be great if possible) with wording that has some apologetic legal and/or PR out. As in this case... oh, we meant to say "to make it equivalent functionally, and not functional in an absolute sense... sorry for the poor wording."
In the other words, it is the marketing department doing their job. Just so happens that some finds the inspiration to call it FUD, misleading, a blatant lie and poorly worded.
Bigus Dickus
Regular
No, that is rationalization of unethical practices in which unfortunately many companies participate. I've seen plenty of sucessful marketing campaigns that weren't reliant on misleading consumers or spreading lies and/or FUD about the competition. That many marketing departments are directed to engage in such, or feel they need to resort to such for their products to have any impact is no excuse. That so many people feel companies should 'get a pass' because this tendancy is so widespread is just a reflection of how lacking ethical education is in the population.
I'd like to see you justify calling the brochure an unethical practice. It simply portrays the selling points of the console. Unfortunately, it seems to have offended you enough, to call it FUD. There isn't a need to "engage" in something inexcusable - there is just a fundamental difference in what the company sees as standard offerings.
I feel that no matter what Sony does, some will find energy to never let it "get a pass". This is just to balance things out a bit.
Bigus Dickus
Regular
I'd say the same thing if it were an MS document about the PS3. In fact, what MS did earlier was just as ridiculous and just as worth of the title FUD. That the heading was changed in a revision is proof enough that the original version was misleading, and I think one would have to have some thick blinders to believe that was unintentional.
I'm amazed at how "acceptable" these business practices are getting. I think there's some old Chinese proverbs (or perhaps biblical ones, or maybe just some common sense from your grandparent's generation...) that would apply here.
I'm amazed at how "acceptable" these business practices are getting. I think there's some old Chinese proverbs (or perhaps biblical ones, or maybe just some common sense from your grandparent's generation...) that would apply here.
Bigus Dickus
Regular
Why will they not then compare to the premium version?...
Didn't they?
Bigus Dickus
Regular
no.
Similar threads
