In alt.games.video.xbox xenon360 wrote:

> K: A game console... maybe. At E3, it's a game console, and its applications 
> are games. We really want to do computer entertainment. Other companies may 
> call theirs game consoles, but we've been calling it as computer 
> entertainment in press releases all along. It's entertainment and computer 
> as well. It's important.

This is a pretty stupid non-distinction.  All consoles are special-purpose 
computers - or appliances.  This is like someone insisting they don't have 
a Tivo DVR - they have a Computer.  Yeah, a Tivo has a CPU, RAM, and a 
HD.  The old ones can even be modded to run Linux and some other 
applications - like a web server for the UI.  

And until someone shows me what other non-game-related applications I can 
use Sony's new PLAYST^H^H^H^H^H^H"Entertainment Computer" for, why make a 
fuss about fancy-schmancy name distinctions?  If it only plays games, it's 
a game console.  Period.  PS2 is a game console that plays DVDs.  Even Xbox 
- with all its 3rd party hacks - is still a game console first and foremost.

All this babbling from Katarigi is just empty buzzword posturing.

> G: So PS3 is a computer and its purpose is entertainment.

> K: Of cource, in the beginning, it's about what's interesting as a game 
> console, and as computer entertainment.

> In PS1, making 3D or not was the biggest differentiation factor. In 
> PlayStation 2, it was the mission to bring 3D in the complete 
> single-standard format - complete NTSC and PAL - in full color. This time, 
> it'll be the crucial difference from other platforms that we make it all 
> computing. In the background of graphics, it does vast calculations, and it 
> produces difference.

Ok, someone please get them a better translator.  Or are we really 
supposed to believe that the fact that the Cell processor does 
"calculations" is going to somehow make it different from every other CPU 
that ever existed?

> G: It does various simulations such as physics simulations, and operations 
> such as AI, synthesis, in its background.

> K: You can't see by just a glance if it's calculated by a Cell Processor or 
> not even though it can show a beautiful HD video. But, if you look at it 
> carefully, calculated things and only converted things are clearly 
> different. You can feel it as an awesome thing when you see it, as it's 
> calculated. You can do thing you've never seen, you can enjoy contents 
> themselves.

> In the case of other companies, the inside is the same even though its 
> graphics becomes HD. They hardly calculate things. Like hardly doing physics 
> and just adding a motion by a motion capture. Even though you can't tell by 
> just a glance, such differences can be seen quickly.

Did they give this sort of speech at E3?  If so, it must have taken the 
poor attendees hours to fully wash off the bullshit, assuming they could 
even untangle the horrible translation.