CNN's BS PS3 article

[nhaase]

http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/27/maga...ystation.biz2/

What makes this story BS? Here, direct from the article:

"For all that innovation in the PS3, one thing didn't change: the controller, that handheld mess of buttons so confusing to non-gamers. Sure, Kuturagi made it work wirelessly, which has no doubt saved the world from a few broken ankles and smashed glasses, but the controller itself looks identical to the one found on the PS2.

Why change something that is already installed in 200 million homes worldwide? Answer: because there are more people in those homes that don't play games, and hundreds of millions more homes to win over.

Nintendo's answer to Ken Kuturagi -- Mario Bros. creator and games world legend Shigeru Miyamoto -- knew this better than most. That's why he designed a revolutionary controller that is sensitive to motion, not button-mashing. Everyone knows how to swing a golf club or a boxing glove in a Wii game. You just swing the controller....

...The Wii may not be the most powerful console ever built, but it is the smallest and lightest. Its chip is not faster than Sony's cell, but it does use less electricity. In short, it looks more like the future.

"

First, the PS2 controller was widely considered the best ever. So yes, why change it? Second, for the last paragraph, they forget that the PS3 controller is motion-sensitive, as well. Also, having the wiimote makes it more revolutionary than the Blu-ray drive, Cell processor, and a motion-sensitive controller? I just don't get how this author came to those conclusions.

I'm not challenging the Wii's success. Its price point is very friendly, helping win over people who don't play video games. But the PS3 is just so different from it; it wins over home theater enthusiasts. Who here bought a PS3 because it was the cheapest blu-ray player and have or will be getting at least one game for it?