Why do so many gamers hate Sony?

[Teh Nitwit]

Hasn't Sony's been very good to gamers? They invested huge amounts of money into the gaming industry and helped advance its technology. They provided the competition, which drove quality up and prices down.

Surely their business practices are no worse then those of Microsoft! Both Microsoft and Nintendo shafted their customers with their last gen consoles (forcing them to upgrade). Nintendo took out component from Gamecube to make Wii have "next-gen" graphics and then not allowed Wii's component cable to work on Gamecube...

Sony has some quality products out there and they invest heavily into gaming. Why is it so popular to hate them?

[Halo05]

FUD mirite The Mana Knight?

[snowsquirrel]

Not sure what 'FUD mirite' means, but I was told that TMK was banned for some random reason.
~S

[Dr Mario Kart]

They provided the competition, which drove quality up and prices down.

I'm going to say that a lot of people disagree with this point.

[Corvin]

They provided the competition, which drove quality up and prices down.

:-k

Prior to the PS2 consoles were under $200.

Launch prices:
PS2: $299
Xbox: $299
Gamecube: $199
PS3: $599
360: $399
Wii: $250

Game prices:
last gen: $50
this gen: $60 (Wii - $50)

They have certainly been a factor in driving down prices. :roll:

As for quality, PS1 & PS2 were notorious for problems, while Nintendo's consoles from 15 years prior were/are still kicking. Xbox and 360 have both been plagued with issues. Other than Nintendo, the PS3 has been the first competing machine worthy of quality.

So in fact, Nintendo has maintained quality and low prices. Not Sony.

As for your last question, why is it popular to hate Sony? Simple answer. Arrogance. Their entire corporation reeked of it prior to both the 360 and PS3/Wii launches, and it showed whenever their executives spoke to the press. They were the big dog on the playground talking smack and bullying around the competition. The target they have on their back was painted there by their own hand.

[Thomas96]

Not sure what 'FUD mirite' means, but I was told that TMK was banned for some random reason.
~S


yep it was true...

[benzene]

Didn't the PSX launch at $299 also?

[Thomas96]

all of Sony negative problems started when they announced that the PS3 was going to be 600 dollars.

[Teh Nitwit]

:-k

Prior to the PS2 consoles were under $200.

They have certainly been a factor in driving down prices. :roll:

As for quality, PS1 & PS2 were notorious for problems, while Nintendo's consoles from 15 years prior were/are still kicking. Xbox and 360 have both been plagued with issues. Other than Nintendo, the PS3 has been the first competing machine worthy of quality.

So in fact, Nintendo has maintained quality and low prices. Not Sony.

As for your last question, why is it popular to hate Sony? Simple answer. Arrogance. Their entire corporation reeked of it prior to both the 360 and PS3/Wii launches, and it showed whenever their executives spoke to the press. They were the big dog on the playground talking smack and bullying around the competition. The target they have on their back was painted there by their own hand.

I was not aware of their arrogance during last gen. It must have been when I was into PC gaming. I did 8-bit->16bit->PC->PS2/GC/GBA->PSP/PS3

So, you're telling me that a company that was in a huge lead over its competitors showed arrogance; that they showed a lack of respect towards their competitors? Isn't that rather normal? I guess I don't like ego maniacs either, but I just don't see it as a big deal. Not enough for me to hate them.

However, regarding their effect on prices, you gotta ask yourself how much more would Microsoft and Nintendo be able to charge for their consoles if they didn't have to compete with Sony. That competition drives prices down is a fact.

[Dr Mario Kart]

As I said previously, having competition is good, but that doesnt mean you have to LIKE the competition by default.

I dont think Sony launching at $600 had any downward effect at all on their competitors' pricing. All it did was cause them problems. Microsoft even offered that core system because they knew how unreasonable $400 by itself was, much to their own detriment, not having a hard drive as standard. Nintendo is trying to offer less for much less, so they werent in a position to price themselves alongside Microsoft, and prior to now, all of their consoles have been $200.

[meesterjojo]

Hasn't Sony's been very good to gamers? They invested huge amounts of money into the gaming industry and helped advance its technology. They provided the competition, which drove quality up and prices down.

Surely their business practices are no worse then those of Microsoft! Both Microsoft and Nintendo shafted their customers with their last gen consoles (forcing them to upgrade). Nintendo took out component from Gamecube to make Wii have "next-gen" graphics and then not allowed Wii's component cable to work on Gamecube...

Sony has some quality products out there and they invest heavily into gaming. Why is it so popular to hate them?
1) Sony's been a blight to gamers for nearly a decade now. They invested what into the gaming industry? You mean how they were paid, eventually, by Nintendo to develop CD technology with Philips for a possible Nintendo-CD expansion which never came about, but with which Sony used to get it's foot in the market place, aka: The Playstation.

2) Their business practices are worse: Look at the PS2 vs. Xbox, granted while no large corporation is an angel, at least M$ sold the Xbox at a loss in order to a) benefit gamers by getting the hot systems in their hands, and thus b) allowing gamers to buy, you know, games.

3) Sony and "quality" are a matter of perspective. While I'll admit the 360 is a faulty design, and the PS3 does seem more stable, and yea verily comes with a Blue-ray player, the titles are just so....Non-Western in nature. It's always been one of the biggest drawbacks for my friends and I with Sony- we're Americans, we have a traditional Western love of games. We, like most of humanity, enjoy things we can relate to. Sony has endlessly misunderstood the American market and pumped score after score of useless Eastern themed titles our way. I honestly don't care about "Kabooki Warriors IX" or "Monster Hunter 4" or another of the fake Japanese RPG's

4) Nintendo took out component, but not until they made it through 60% of the Gamecubes lifespan. HDTV support for that generation consoles just wasn't popular period here in the West: seriously, did you have an HDTV capable of 1080p, oh heck, I'll even go as low as 720p, in 2001/2002? I did, and I got the cables I needed. Waaah.

5) Back to Sony's games vs. Nintendo's games: Nintendo does pump a lot of Japanese/Eastern gaming our way, BUT Nintendo is extremely sensitive to one of it's most important markets- America. America is the Nintendo "Nest egg". America gave rise/popularity to Mario (Designed just for America), Zelda was an American-only game for a good while. Icarus, while Japanese first, has a distinctly Western flair. Sony, by comparison, gives us Monster Hunter, a score of Samuri and anime games with niche/limited appeal, and horrible fake-RPG's (I say fake because most RPG afficionados do not consider the Final Fantasy/Any product from Square Soft-Enix as a real RPG- they're number crunchers/battle sims. The Japanese have a "Fight" Fetish, if you'll notice, the games which are the biggest sellers are about fighting, and games which are shooters are usually less than popular compared to here in America, although I do, on a side note, dearly wish they had released Muzzle Flash for Xbox here in America- that was a good game). Robots, fighting games, anime- it gets old, and is not relevant to my background or interests. In that way Sony is telling me "We don't care about what American gamers want, we only care to sell you our left overs".
Their greed exceeds their common sense of our market, and the "Yes-men" who work for Sony North America will keep nodding approval to their Rising Sun masters till it's too late.

[newmodel]

I don't hate Sony; but the way they outmarketed and destroyed the Dreamcast with PS2 really hurt me. Dreamcast was in my opinion a vastly superior and ahead of its time system, and the PS2 ate it alive with the PS1 userbase. Also, the Sony rootkit fiasco was unacceptable. Sony has a history of intrusive and/or destructive copyright protection schemes. I'd still buy a PS3, but its going to take 2-3 more price cuts. :D

[meesterjojo]

I was not aware of their arrogance during last gen. It must have been when I was into PC gaming. I did 8-bit->16bit->PC->PS2/GC/GBA->PSP/PS3

So, you're telling me that a company that was in a huge lead over its competitors showed arrogance; that they showed a lack of respect towards their competitors? Isn't that rather normal? I guess I don't like ego maniacs either, but I just don't see it as a big deal. Not enough for me to hate them.

However, regarding their effect on prices, you gotta ask yourself how much more would Microsoft and Nintendo be able to charge for their consoles if they didn't have to compete with Sony. That competition drives prices down is a fact.

Actually Nintedo has done total product recalls at huge losses to themselves. They could have done the Sony/M$ model and ignored it, or produced a newer model with a fix, but they didn't. Nintendo does what it does, for better or worse, out of the best interests of the gamer. They seem to realise that, gasp, their profits are related to the happiness of the end-user. This has been reported time and again by executives of nintendo, and especially the original President of Nintendo America.

Sony takes a long time to lower it's price. I remember when I lived in Manhattan during the first Xbox price drop- I went and got one on day 1 of the drop. Sony took another 14 months to lower it's price, and only $25. Woo. However, keep in mind that early PS2's were the 360 of the day: breaking left and right. The Xbox, which was sold at a loss to M$, was far more stable, and offered western gamers more relevant titles.

[Teh Nitwit]

all of Sony negative problems started when they announced that the PS3 was going to be 600 dollars.

So, it has something to do with resentment?

In my case, while I don't have Wii or Xbox, I don't have any strong feelings towards Microsoft or Nintendo. I guess I'm mad at Microsoft over what they did to my beloved Mechwarrior series, but I would have bought XBOX360 if it had games that I was really interested in (dislike 1st person shooters) AND if I was confident in its reliability (which I'm not).

One thing I've noticed is that even if I wanted to buy another console, I would have the problem of finding a proper place ot put it (shelf space). I think for various reasons people don't like to own more than one gaming console and once they have one they like to think about the ones they don't have negatively (to make themselves feel better about not having it).

Oh yeah, I just remembered now how Sony made themselves look arrogant lately with the controller vibration issue (claiming that it's "last gen"). They have idiots in charge, but then they're not the only ones. Have you seen many companies being actually honest with their customers and openly admit their mistakes? I still don't think that their arrognace is that big of a deal. It's more like people are hating Sony for deeper, personal reasons and are merely using the arrogance of Sony's suits as justification for their hatred.

[Blackout]

2) Their business practices are worse: Look at the PS2 vs. Xbox, granted while no large corporation is an angel, at least M$ sold the Xbox at a loss in order to a) benefit gamers by getting the hot systems in their hands, and thus b) allowing gamers to buy, you know, games.



Yeah I'm sure Microsoft's intent was to "benefit gamers".

[Dr Mario Kart]

To be fair, price drops are all about market position. Not only that, the EFFECT that a price drop has is also dependent on your market position.

Price drops for the leader are expected to be few and far in between. While the effect that their price drop has is that it further solidifies their lead.

For those that are behind, they are expected to drop their prices quicker, and the end effect is minimal (see xbox, gamecube).

Its my theory that price drops accentuate current sales trends but do not radically CHANGE their direction.

[H.Cornerstone]

Where's the In before lock gif when you need it?

[Teh Nitwit]

I don't hate Sony; but the way they outmarketed and destroyed the Dreamcast with PS2 really hurt me. Dreamcast was in my opinion a vastly superior and ahead of its time system, and the PS2 ate it alive with the PS1 userbase. Also, the Sony rootkit fiasco was unacceptable. Sony has a history of intrusive and/or destructive copyright protection schemes. I'd still buy a PS3, but its going to take 2-3 more price cuts. :D

So it looks like there is some history I'm not aware of (being out of consoles for several years) and that Sony did do some things to deserve some hatred. Allright, thanks for the info.

meesterjojo (http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/member.php?u=118632),
I hear ya, but why is it that Sony gets hated for PS2's initial poor quality and everyone loves their xbox360's?

Also, regarding PS3's high cost, you gotta remember that while it was more expensive, you also got a lot more for that money (internal HD, HDMI, wifi, bluray (with its higher storage capacity and higher bandwidth)). Finally, PS3 are so cheap now, that price shouldn't be the factor anymore (relative to xbox).

[Thomas96]

So, it has something to do with resentment?

In my case, while I don't have Wii or Xbox, I don't have any strong feelings towards Microsoft or Nintendo. I guess I'm mad at Microsoft over what they did to my beloved Mechwarrior series, but I would have bought XBOX360 if it had games that I was really interested in (dislike 1st person shooters) AND if I was confident in its reliability (which I'm not).

One thing I've noticed is that even if I wanted to buy another console, I would have the problem of finding a proper place ot put it (shelf space). I think for various reasons people don't like to own more than one gaming console and once they have one they like to think about the ones they don't have negatively (to make themselves feel better about not having it).

Oh yeah, I just remembered now how Sony made themselves look arrogant lately with the controller vibration issue (claiming that it's "last gen"). They have idiots in charge, but then they're not the only ones. Have you seen many companies being actually honest with their customers and openly admit their mistakes? I still don't think that their arrognace is that big of a deal. It's more like people are hating Sony for deeper, personal reasons and are merely using the arrogance of Sony's suits as justification for their hatred.



the bottom line is that people (most of them) absolutely can NOT afford 600, 500 dollars. So the PS3 is so far off scope they have to enjoy something else instead.. could be some resentment... but if people can't afford your product, they have to walk away from it. Why should I be infactuated with Stacey Dash.. damn she's fine, but she's off my scope, so I don't bother to like her. Now that fine girl down the street, she's on my scope.. she's fine. The Wii is like that girl down the street.

[h3llbring3r]

FWIW, it's not just jilted consumers that have some disdain for $ony.

Many developers absolutely despise developing for the PS3's unnecessarily complicated architecture. As a developer you might have to ask yourself if even developing a game for the PS3 would be worth the 4-5x extra in labor costs to make a game for the weakest selling console and weakest selling software market of all three of the next gen. systems.

Think about it, why would 2K Games develop a copy of an existing title like Bioshock for the PS3 if it costs them many more man hours to create a smoothly running port than it did to dev. the 360 version and then have it sell less. It could cause incredible losses not just in the redevelopment of the existing title but also in wasted dev. time of other more profitable IP's.

Many developers have to pour several times the number of hours into making workable multi-platform titles for the PS3 only to have them malfunction strikingly inferior on what should be the "beefier," more expensive and less popular console (take, Assassins Creed, Orange Box and CoD4 for example).

Which raises the similar question: Why develop a game that would detract from your IP's goodwill and potentially damage future sales just to get it on a console with less market penetration when most of your buyers own the other platforms you are considering.

Superior "build" quality and Bluray are the PS3's saving grace, hopefully $ony will follow up with more first party titles, as I think that is the only way the console is being saved. As of now, I wish I had gouged some poor sap on eBay for the PS3 I choose to keep. It has certainly been a waste of my entertainment dollar.

I am all about competition, but right now $ony's not even on the playing field as the other consoles. Even those of us who can easily afford the $500+ price point are disgruntled. I have towed the line for $ony for a long time, and just been burned to badly with this incarnation of the PS to defend them anymore.

[meesterjojo]

Yeah I'm sure Microsoft's intent was to "benefit gamers".

Actually I thought I made it clear that no large corporation was into doing good deeds beyond helping themselves. Sorry if I abreviated a bit, I thought that some of the readers/contributors to this thread might be able to, I dunno, read with comprehension.

The point was, as stated, and for which I shall clarify for you, again, was 1) lower cost means more people buy the console (which was sold at a profit loss by M$), and thus 2) gamers could afford to buy the games.

In short- more money off the games is a better investment rather than having people blow their wads on a console and just sit there with a few games. The console, in theory, will always be there, but the games keep coming. You want to encourage people to buy more games (as, and I'm spelling this out for you especially, there is no profit in making people buy multiple consoles. I mean, you do understand that, right? If you have a console and no games...it's rather pointless).

Hope that cleared it up for you.

[Dr Mario Kart]

Also, regarding PS3's high cost, you gotta remember that while it was more expensive, you also got a lot more for that money (internal HD, HDMI, wifi, bluray (with its higher storage capacity and higher bandwidth)). Finally, PS3 are so cheap now, that price shouldn't be the factor anymore (relative to xbox).
This isnt how people generally think. They dont factor tech for the value into the equation when they decide how valuable it is to them (aside from people in the market for standalone blu-ray players I guess).

It always is games for the value that people will largely be considering.

[jennie25]

As I said previously, having competition is good, but that doesnt mean you have to LIKE the competition by default.

I dont think Sony launching at $600 had any downward effect at all on their competitors' pricing. All it did was cause them problems. Microsoft even offered that core system because they knew how unreasonable $400 by itself was, much to their own detriment, not having a hard drive as standard. Nintendo is trying to offer less for much less, so they werent in a position to price themselves alongside Microsoft, and prior to now, all of their consoles have been $200.

I was 16 when the n64 launched, but wasn't it 249? It's been awhile, but the n64 was very disappointing. I own one still to this day, but outside of nintendo games it was sad to me. I only quote dmk for the last part of the post.

With that said, I think m$ has the worst business practices, with sony being second worst. There are many reasons for this and no I still don't like M$, but they did bring out Xbox live which will hopefully bring back the oh so popular xband! Now I must leave to go to work, thanks for reading my randomness

[h3llbring3r]

I liked the 64, what titles I bought were great (but I bought very few)
GoldenEye garned hours of college multiplay, mariocart for the 64 was rocking, Shadows of the Empire Rogue squadron. . . etc good stuff. I did buy many more titles for my PS but probably spent about equal time on both.

[meesterjojo]

So it looks like there is some history I'm not aware of (being out of consoles for several years) and that Sony did do some things to deserve some hatred. Allright, thanks for the info.

meesterjojo (http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/member.php?u=118632),
I hear ya, but why is it that Sony gets hated for PS2's initial poor quality and everyone loves their xbox360's?

Also, regarding PS3's high cost, you gotta remember that while it was more expensive, you also got a lot more for that money (internal HD, HDMI, wifi, bluray (with its higher storage capacity and higher bandwidth)). Finally, PS3 are so cheap now, that price shouldn't be the factor anymore (relative to xbox).

A lot of 360 owners, myself included, hate that we love our 360. hehe. It's a rough state to be in: We hate that the machine is a failing POS, but we love the games, and honestly, the games are more relevant/have greater appeal to a Western gamer than some lame 1-shot Anime game, a Samuri game, or some other Nipponcentric crap.

The difference is this: PS2 on release was the same cost as a PS3 now, which is still HIGHER than the most expensive 360. I'd be mad as hell if I bought a PS2 on release which was defective. It took Sony until the 50K models (the very last of the Big Boys, for those who don't know) until they got their shit fixed. That's a long, long, long time in terms of a console lifespan.

As for the comparison to the PS3 high cost: my 360 came with a removable HD, and HDMI. Sadly M$ doesn't give me WiFi, but honestly, if that helps keep the cost of the console lower- who cares: I'm not playing "WiFi Ninja Warrior IX" or something. The Blue-Ray player built in, now THAT is the most tempting deal for the PS3 (and on a side note the largest point of contention between Sony and M$ over HD-DVD vs. Blue-Ray player sales- Sony includes PS3 sales which recently have boosted the numbers).

Facts we can all agree on:

1) Sony hates Western consumers with a passion. A fact which is displayed every day in many ways including price gouging for similar products to distribution of irrelivant software.

2) Microsoft is Big Brother. Sony is just Evil, but M$ is just something else. While Sony will perpetually screw up, get caught, get in trouble, and look bad, M$ can do the same (Anyone see the *3* seperate MSNBC (and funny b/c it's MSnbc, reports on how shitty the 360 hardware is b/c it breaks constantly?) and they'll just ignore consumers. In this way M$ is no better than Sony, except at least when the 360 breaks, we're out of pocket less, and still have interesting games to look towards.

3) Nintendo cares. Sure, they care about profits, but they clearly care about the "Family niche" for their sales. They know that more adulterated titles can be had on the other systems. They know that graphically superior titles can be found there as well. They focus on quality, family, and accordingly are building a strong base (again) with parents and children (aka: future gamers with $$). Nintendo has a plethora of party games, and encourages people to interact with others in a healthy way. Nintendo has protected it's North American market rather than abuse it or take it for granted as Sony and M$ have.

[h3llbring3r]

You call it "Family Niche" I call it broad appeal (no pun intended). Chicks in their 20's and early 30's can't get enough of my Wii. (edit: And I am happily married! WoS)

[meesterjojo]

You call it "Family Niche" I call it broad appeal (no pun intended). Chicks in their 20's and early 30's can't get enough of my Wii. (edit: And I am happily married! WoS)

True/fair enough. I tend to water-down the Nintendo clique by calling it a Family system. And true too, many of my women have loved my Nofriendo over my other systems.

[Blackout]

Actually I thought I made it clear that no large corporation was into doing good deeds beyond helping themselves. Sorry if I abreviated a bit, I thought that some of the readers/contributors to this thread might be able to, I dunno, read with comprehension.

The point was, as stated, and for which I shall clarify for you, again, was 1) lower cost means more people buy the console (which was sold at a profit loss by M$), and thus 2) gamers could afford to buy the games.

In short- more money off the games is a better investment rather than having people blow their wads on a console and just sit there with a few games. The console, in theory, will always be there, but the games keep coming. You want to encourage people to buy more games (as, and I'm spelling this out for you especially, there is no profit in making people buy multiple consoles. I mean, you do understand that, right? If you have a console and no games...it's rather pointless).

Hope that cleared it up for you.

I can't see how anyone had major problems buying games last gen (maybe I can say that now since this gen is just getting crazy high with the price of games). If you buy a game system, you pretty much are going to buy 1 or 2 games when you pick up the system, and later on down the line pick up more. If you realize your going to have problems affording the games for the thing, why even buy it? Just wait a bit for a price drop on the games, like the GH line. The PS2 price tag did not seem to stop people from buying the system. When did the first price drop happen? PS2 were selling left and right (and unfortunately later on, breaking left and right :D ). I also don't see how it helps the consumer when your product only lasts 4 years. That was the one of the problems I had with the original XBOX. Not a huge list of exclusives and a really short life span. Although what they did with Live and what it has become is just awsome.

[h3llbring3r]

True/fair enough. I tend to water-down the Nintendo clique by calling it a Family system. And true too, many of my women have loved my Nofriendo over my other systems.

Broad Appeal examples:
http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/5296/wiimq1.gif http://www.destructoid.com/wp-content/uploads/wiigirl2.gif

[Corvin]

I was 16 when the n64 launched, but wasn't it 249? It's been awhile, but the n64 was very disappointing. I own one still to this day, but outside of nintendo games it was sad to me. I only quote dmk for the last part of the post.



It was announced at $250 but dropped to $199 shortly before launch. This will sound odd but the N64 was probably my favorite console up until the 360 and I've been gaming since the Atari days.

So it looks like there is some history I'm not aware of (being out of consoles for several years) and that Sony did do some things to deserve some hatred. Allright, thanks for the info.

meesterjojo (http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/member.php?u=118632),
I hear ya, but why is it that Sony gets hated for PS2's initial poor quality and everyone loves their xbox360's?

Also, regarding PS3's high cost, you gotta remember that while it was more expensive, you also got a lot more for that money (internal HD, HDMI, wifi, bluray (with its higher storage capacity and higher bandwidth)). Finally, PS3 are so cheap now, that price shouldn't be the factor anymore (relative to xbox).

There is all kinds of history you are missing. Nearly all of it took place in 2005, beginning in the spring if I'm not mistaken. The price was the tip of the iceberg. Nearly every time Sony stepped up to address their system something arrogant and dumbfounded would come from their mouths. There are dozens of examples.

As for the high cost, sure it has all kinds of extras to justify it's price but you have to keep in mind there were 120 million PS2 GAMERS out there wanting the next Playstation GAMING machine, not multimedia entertainment hub. They had the entire market by the balls and let it slip through their fingers because they couldn't stay focused on gaming and instead built a $600 movie machine.

[meesterjojo]

I can't see how anyone had major problems buying games last gen (maybe I can say that now since this gen is just getting crazy high with the price of games). If you buy a game system, you pretty much are going to buy 1 or 2 games when you pick up the system, and later on down the line pick up more. If you realize your going to have problems affording the games for the thing, why even buy it? Just wait a bit for a price drop on the games, like the GH line. The PS2 price tag did not seem to stop people from buying the system. When did the first price drop happen? PS2 were selling left and right (and unfortunately later on, breaking left and right :D ). I also don't see how it helps the consumer when your product only lasts 4 years. That was the one of the problems I had with the original XBOX. Not a huge list of exclusives and a really short life span. Although what they did with Live and what it has become is just awsome.

I knew people who were living check to check in NYC when the PS2 hit and they blew a whole check just to get one. People want what they want, and they didn't want to think it would break on them, which eventually it did.

Hmmm using myself as an example: I only recently purchased a 360 after being away from consoles for a few years. I researched it, and realised that it would eventually, sooner than later, break. Still I invested. I've been rather happy with it thus far, but always fear it's going to crap out. I even purchased that silly extended warranty. I could have gotten any of the systems out there, but I chose the 360- more interesting titles, to me.

Xbox lasting 4 years- that's still quite a go in my opinion. Xbox had a lot of exclusive titles, but perhaps they weren't interesting to you. Maybe you like what Sony offers more? I can't say. Value is relative, and I suppose that's one of the points to come out of all this thread.

[meesterjojo]

It was announced at $250 but dropped to $199 shortly before launch.



There is all kinds of history you are missing. Nearly all of it took place in 2005, beginning in the spring if I'm not mistaken. The price was the tip of the iceberg. Nearly every time Sony stepped up to address their system something arrogant and dumbfounded would come from their mouths. There are dozens of examples.

As for the high cost, sure it has all kinds of extras to justify it's price but you have to keep in mind there were 120 million PS2 GAMERS out there wanting the next Playstation GAMING machine, not multimedia entertainment hub. They had the entire market by the balls and let it slip through their fingers because they couldn't stay focused on gaming and instead built a $600 movie machine.

Actually the PS2 was $350 in Japan at launch, and at the Sony Style Store in Manhattan which I stood in line with my crazy friends to buy one it was $499. That was a long time ago though now.

2005 and the PS2, or 2005 and the PS3? I sold my 50K series PS2 in 2004, for top dollar- people wanted a reliable PS2, and even those new Slims were breaking. hah

I stopped console gaming early in 2005.

I'm sorry, I'm losing your point, as you use a lot of "it" and "they" etc, I need to know what you're referencing as we're all jumping between Xbox classic, 360, Nintendo, PS2 and PS3. hehe sorry.

[meesterjojo]

Broad Appeal examples:
http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/5296/wiimq1.gif http://www.destructoid.com/wp-content/uploads/wiigirl2.gif
haha that's awesome.

[whoknows]

I used to think it was the cool thing to hate Sony, and surprisingly some people still think that way/act that way. That's so E3 2006.

Anyways, people just give the PS3 less credit than it deserves. They keep complaining and saying the 360 has way better games. I remember when people were saying how this fall was going to be great for 360 owners and lol @ PS3 owners. They didn't say it exactly like that, but when you look at the big releases for Fall/Winter this year, PS3 wins IMO. 360 got Halo and Mass Effect, PS3 got Heavenly Sword, Ratchet, Time Crisis, Uncharted, and will be getting Unreal Tournament 3 in a few days.

All the biggest games for the year both systems got, a couple may have looked slightly better on the 360, but unless comparing side by side it isn't noticeable.

So pretty much I think the biggest problem is that people who own a 360 have no interest in the PS3 due to most of the big games being multiplatform. I personally like the exclusives the PS3 is getting/will be getting so I make it my main system even though I do own a 360. Various things about the 360 make me not want to play it (crappy hardware, loud, controllers aren't rechargeable, Live isn't free, etc)

[Blackout]

I knew people who were living check to check in NYC when the PS2 hit and they blew a whole check just to get one. People want what they want, and they didn't want to think it would break on them, which eventually it did.

Hmmm using myself as an example: I only recently purchased a 360 after being away from consoles for a few years. I researched it, and realised that it would eventually, sooner than later, break. Still I invested. I've been rather happy with it thus far, but always fear it's going to crap out. I even purchased that silly extended warranty. I could have gotten any of the systems out there, but I chose the 360- more interesting titles, to me.

Xbox lasting 4 years- that's still quite a go in my opinion. Xbox had a lot of exclusive titles, but perhaps they weren't interesting to you. Maybe you like what Sony offers more? I can't say. Value is relative, and I suppose that's one of the points to come out of all this thread.

If I would have known my PS2 was going to break (got it in November 01, broke around mid 03) I probably would have waited and bought a fixed model. I bought an XBOX and that thing crapped out on me too. GC was the only one that had no problems whatsoever.

4 years IMO is too short for a console. To me it would feel your deep into the console when a new one rolls by.

Yeah I liked what Sony had on the PS2, but that doesn't mean I didn't like what was on the XBOX. I loved Doom, Half Life, KOTOR, Jade Empire, Still Life, the Halo games, etc. I was just a HUGE fan of the Ratchet/Sly/Jak combo, and then God of War, the RPGs, Grand Theft Auto, etc. I loved the Crash games back on PS1, along with Spyro. I think XBOX only had like Blinx? Not too sure. I did enjoy that series though.

[Thomas96]

The Wii is like a 250 dollar interactive board game. When I see stuff like stuff like that [Broad Appeal], it upsets me, because damn, this is not what gaming is about, and no Nintendo hasn't sold their soul to the mass market [entirely]. That's one thing I appreciate with Sony, they're at least trying to appeal to the people that got them to where they are, whereas Nintendo just put their fans [like me on the back burner] I'm going to get a Wii, but not for games, just for Wii sports, and maybe some VC games. Gaming isn't about minigames and gimmicks, its about good games, that are fun to play, and take skill to master.

[meesterjojo]

I used to think it was the cool thing to hate Sony, and surprisingly some people still think that way/act that way. That's so E3 2006.

Anyways, people just give the PS3 less credit than it deserves. They keep complaining and saying the 360 has way better games. I remember when people were saying how this fall was going to be great for 360 owners and lol @ PS3 owners. They didn't say it exactly like that, but when you look at the big releases for Fall/Winter this year, PS3 wins IMO. 360 got Halo and Mass Effect, PS3 got Heavenly Sword, Ratchet, Time Crisis, Uncharted, and will be getting Unreal Tournament 3 in a few days.

All the biggest games for the year both systems got, a couple may have looked slightly better on the 360, but unless comparing side by side it isn't noticeable.

So pretty much I think the biggest problem is that people who own a 360 have no interest in the PS3 due to most of the big games being multiplatform. I personally like the exclusives the PS3 is getting/will be getting so I make it my main system even though I do own a 360. Various things about the 360 make me not want to play it (crappy hardware, loud, controllers aren't rechargeable, Live isn't free, etc)

That's pretty much been covered by the previous posts- A person choses their system of choice based on how much the titles offered relate to them.

Unreal Tournie 3 is, right now, the only sore spot for me currently as a 360 owner- having to wait till late 2008 sucks.

Heavenly Sword, Rachet and Clank, Time Crisis, and Uncharted, which looks like a Tomb Raider spin-off to me, just hold minimal appeal to me. I like FPS, Western style RPGs (and PS3 did get Oblivion, but not the GOTY, right?)...and hmmm I just took a look at my 360 selections, haha, most of them aren't even exclusive to the 360, except for Mass Effect, maybe Prey, Gears of War. oh wait, Viva Pinata is, and the Oblivion GOTY...Halo 1/2/3, the new Katarmi...Hmmm nevermind maybe there are some decent exclusives.

[h3llbring3r]

The Wii is like a 250 dollar interactive board game. When I see stuff like stuff like that [Broad Appeal], it upsets me, because damn, this is not what gaming is about, and no Nintendo hasn't sold their soul to the mass market [entirely]. That's one thing I appreciate with Sony, they're at least trying to appeal to the people that got them to where they are, whereas Nintendo just put their fans [like me on the back burner] I'm going to get a Wii, but not for games, just for Wii sports, and maybe some VC games. Gaming isn't about minigames and gimmicks, its about good games, that are fun to play, and take skill to master.

I laugh at what your idea of gaming is about, granted I don't play my personal alone time premium/hardcore gaming hours on my Wii at all, but to call it an interactive board game is just disingenuous.

[whoknows]

Oblivion GOTY is not 360 exclusive FYI

[h3llbring3r]

I think he means it was a temp exclusive like Haze, or UT.

[whoknows]

Haze is exclusive, and Oblivion GOTY was exclusive for what? A month?

Also he listed Halo 1 and 2 which aren't 360 games.

[mrlokievil]

I don't get all of the sony hate either. Only real problem I have ever had was when my launch PS2 died after 3 months, but I got a new as soon as it did and it has been working ever since. My launch PS1 lasted for 7 years before it stopped working.

Sony is also not the one responsible for $60 games, that's Microsoft. Sony actually started lowering game prices with the PS1. I remember Nintendo charging $70-100 for games back in the SNES and N64 days. Sony was the one that started selling first party games for $40.

I can understand the arrogance reasoning because that's what happened to nintendo. The total hate and acting like sony has never done anything right is beyond me. They are part of the reason that the videogame market is as big as it is today.

[Dr Mario Kart]

Perhaps Thomas would like to tell us how Nintendo's CORE offerings NOW are different than at any time in the history of the company. Their core offerings have always been from a few, select franchises. The difference is that ON TOP OF THAT, they're expanding with a few small teams towards other audiences. The diversity always came from 3rd parties, which they lost after the SNES era and have them back now for the DS. All because of Marketshare, the singular most important thing in all of the industry. The kind of marketshare expansion caused by things like Brain Age, for example, are DIRECTLY responsible for Dragon Quest 9 on DS.

Is Sony really catering to the people who got them there if the people who got them there arent buying it? I dont see anything about their current strategy that is aiming towards the PS1/PS2 demographic. And apparently, neither do they.

[meesterjojo]

So it looks like there is some history I'm not aware of (being out of consoles for several years) and that Sony did do some things to deserve some hatred. Allright, thanks for the info.

meesterjojo (http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/member.php?u=118632),
I hear ya, but why is it that Sony gets hated for PS2's initial poor quality and everyone loves their xbox360's?

Also, regarding PS3's high cost, you gotta remember that while it was more expensive, you also got a lot more for that money (internal HD, HDMI, wifi, bluray (with its higher storage capacity and higher bandwidth)). Finally, PS3 are so cheap now, that price shouldn't be the factor anymore (relative to xbox).

Maybe, but as others have stated, in essence: nobody buys a console just to own the console- they buy into a console for the games. PS3, to me, doesn't have enough interesting games to warrant the high price tag. Can the HD be upgraded? Does PS3 have movies/games for download (I don't know these things, honestly, but I do know I reguarly fill up my 360 HD with movies/videos/games)

I would dearly love one, but I don't need a system I'm not using sitting around collecting dust. This is why I'm liquidating most of my uber console collection as it is. I think 2008, however, may be an interesting year for Sony and the PS3, at least I'm hoping so- M$ has a number of great games lined up

[zewone]

Let's all pat each other on the backs.

We own That Triple.

[meesterjojo]

Is Sony really catering to the people who got them there if the people who got them there arent buying it? I dont see anything about their current strategy that is aiming towards the PS1/PS2 demographic. And apparently, neither do they.

Other than Sony releasing a new PS2 in 2008, and still releasing games for the PS2.

[vera]

i really don't get it either. Sony has always done good and fine in my eyes. it does seem like a collection of reasons.. flavor of the week to hate the brand, bigots like meesterjojo who for some reason seem to think that all of sony is controlled by Japan and that they hate the "west".. like there isn't a of Sony of America.

[meesterjojo]

Haze is exclusive, and Oblivion GOTY was exclusive for what? A month?

Also he listed Halo 1 and 2 which aren't 360 games.

Haze has no appeal to me.

Halo 1 and 2 are Xbox games, and Halo 1 just became available for download on XBL. It's a game which belongs with the Xbox, be it a classic system or a 360.

Or: why purchase a gamecube at full retail when you can invest in a Wii and play cube games?

[meesterjojo]

i really don't get it either. Sony has always done good and fine in my eyes. it does seem like a collection of reasons.. flavor of the week to hate the brand, bigots like meesterjojo who for some reason seem to think that all of sony is controlled by Japan and that they hate the "west".. like there isn't a of Sony of America.

Why am I a bigot because I state that I prefer western-style games as they are relevant to my interests?

I've stated what sort of games I like, and what holds interest to me and my friends. I've stated that Value is relative, and in turn that (as should be obvious) everyones tastes are different.

At no point did I call you, or anyone else a name.

[whoknows]

Haze has no appeal to me.

Halo 1 and 2 are Xbox games, and Halo 1 just became available for download on XBL. It's a game which belongs with the Xbox, be it a classic system or a 360.

Or: why purchase a gamecube at full retail when you can invest in a Wii and play cube games?
If you are going to count Xbox games why not also count every PS1/PS2 game?

[Dr Mario Kart]

I was refering to the strategy of the PS3 in particular. Of course the PS2 would naturally be catering to the PS2 crowd.

But I wasnt aware that they have any FIRST party projects on the thing, outside of expansions of Singstar maybe.

[HeadRusch]

Hasn't Sony's been very good to gamers? They invested huge amounts of money into the gaming industry and helped advance its technology. They provided the competition, which drove quality up and prices down.

Yes, we love the old Sony.


Surely their business practices are no worse then those of Microsoft! Both Microsoft and Nintendo shafted their customers with their last gen consoles (forcing them to upgrade). Nintendo took out component from Gamecube to make Wii have "next-gen" graphics and then not allowed Wii's component cable to work on Gamecube...

Sony has some quality products out there and they invest heavily into gaming. Why is it so popular to hate them?

Sony has mostly shit products on the market, unless you buy from their high-end (and high priced) product lines, understand that.

Sonys PS3 one year later is now $200 cheaper than it was at launch...and what awesome software did I get to enjoy for that $200 premium with my launch system? Motorstorm, Resistance (which I still think sucks) and finally...Drakes Fortune.

Meanwhile the UI software is practically still in beta, it doesn't interface well with any of the games, chatting is a nightmare because most bluetooth headsets die after 2 hours of talking (seriously....what were they thinking?)..if you can even get chatting to work properly, etc, etc.

People are down on Sony due to high cost with almost nothing to show for it.

[meesterjojo]

If you are going to count Xbox games why not also count every PS1/PS2 game?

Because I no longer own either of those systems, and I do, however, own a 360.

Ta-da! Do try reading the thread before commenting :)

[vera]

Why am I a bigot because I state that I prefer western-style games as they are relevant to my interests?

I've stated what sort of games I like, and what holds interest to me and my friends. I've stated that Value is relative, and in turn that (as should be obvious) everyones tastes are different.

At no point did I call you, or anyone else a name.
i'm not attacking your taste in games - but your beginning comments were saturated with attacks towards sony because of the company's country of origin.

you said that sony price gouges the west and forces their "irrelevant games" on to us. irrelevant to you maybe.. it's not like they release these games to spite us. and there is an obvious market for them.. just because you're not in it doesn't make it irrelevant.

so if sony hates us by "price gouging" wouldn't that mean that microsoft hates the world for releasing a console that makes me feel like i'm playing russian roulette everytime i turn it on?

[Strell]

I'm not going to enter into any debates with other responses here, but I will comment on the OP's question.

There's a few things to consider. The easiest to attack is the arrogance of Sony as of late. I want to stress "of late," because no one was upset about it prior to the PS3. I don't know if it wasn't there with the PS1/2, or if everyone simply ignored it, or if it wasn't reported, or whatever, but the point is that a lot of execs lately walked around prior to the PS3's release and talked about how "oh it's so awesome you'll take a second job" and the like. Generally, that only bites you in the ass if your performance doesn't measure up. And right now, the PS3 isn't selling as well as all that big talk would have liked. I think we all remember Tretton's (Trenton? I can never remember) bold comment about how he'd shell out $1200 for each PS3 you can find on the shelves.

So part of it is a reaction to that haughty, "we're smarter than you and you'll do what we tell you" attitude. Nintendo did it in grand, grand ways in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and it continued until Yamauchi's reign (like an emotionally bitter emperor, he was). When you act like you've got big balls resting on your entire fanbase, at some point people start to think "good god, there's giant balls resting on my head."

After the arrogance, though, it becomes more dilluted and cloudy. Some people hate Sony because they are technically in third place. I say technically because it's hard to really say at the moment unless we go by pure hardware sales, and that's not wholly fair. Another reason might have to do with software being delayed, not being received as well critically, and generally not living up to expectations.

Maybe it has to do with the constant hardware changes, the fickle obsession/dismissal of backwards compatability, and the "whenever WE do something, it is AWESOME, and if anyone else did it BEFORE us, it was a gimmick, and if they do it AFTER us, they are copying" mentality, especially when they brutally attacked motion control as nothing, only to add it in later.

Might also have to do with things like lying about how "we can't fit in rumble" when you clearly can. Or the insistence that "our system will last 10 years and be INCREDIBLE in ten years," when everyone is so hot to see the good stuff now now now.

The overall point is that there are some legitimate reasons to be upset with Sony. There's also some invalid ones - it's human nature to like to see the king toppled every once and a while, and that seems to be what is happening right now. Same thing happened with Nintendo and the N64, and even though that particular system made money for Nintendo, people still said it was a failure and gave Nintendo a lot of hatred.

In the end, it's hard to quantify the good things Sony has done versus the bad. Kind of like how it is difficult to do the same for Walmart. On the one hand, they deliver lots of cheap products to a large group of people in order to help give them a better quality of life. But on the other hand, Walmart destroys small businesses, illegally hires immigrants, doesn't give benefits, locks people into their stores at night, etc etc etc.

The point is that if you like Sony, that's fine. But you have to be aware of the things they've done to earn their disapproval. Nintendo and Microsoft fans - I assure you - get just as much flak as Sony fans. It doesn't matter that all three companies have done legitimately good things for the industry. They've all done things that will be poorly received, and it seems that the gamer set is full of embittered runts who like to hold onto grudges.

[mrlokievil]

Why am I a bigot because I state that I prefer western-style games as they are relevant to my interests?

I've stated what sort of games I like, and what holds interest to me and my friends. I've stated that Value is relative, and in turn that (as should be obvious) everyones tastes are different.

At no point did I call you, or anyone else a name.

I wouldn't say bigot but your statements don't make sense. You say you only like western themed-games and thats the reason why you don't like sony, but you mentioned Katamari as one of the 360 exclusives that you were interested in. That game is about as japanese as you can get, and the series started on PS2.

[meesterjojo]

i'm not attacking your taste in games - but your beginning comments were saturated with attacks towards sony because of the company's country of origin.

you said that sony price gouges the west and forces their "irrelevant games" on to us. irrelevant to you maybe.. it's not like they release these games to spite us. and there is an obvious market for them.. just because you're not in it doesn't make it irrelevant.

so if sony hates us by "price gouging" wouldn't that mean that microsoft hates the world for releasing a console that makes me feel like i'm playing russian roulette everytime i turn it on?

Please read everything before commenting- we've already covered relevancy/invidual likes and dislikes, why are you attacking me based on my preferences, which were clearly stated?

My attacks on the country of origin? If the truth is an attack on a country, then so be it- Fact: Sony releases consoles and games cheaper in Japan/Asia than in America. Fact: Sony releases more titles which are Eastern in nature than first party titles which are Western in nature. For example, look at a the difference between a Japanese RPG and a Western one: Final Fantasy vs. Oblivion. I'm not asking which you prefer, but to look at the differences as an example.

It's not like I stated something like: "The Japanese have a history of producing games in which underage children use piles of shit, piss, and vomit as a weapon to defeat enemies". Now that *MIGHT* be a biggoted statement on my part...except it's true, they did for the TG-16.

Now, let me take a little side step here, if I were to say "Those slope bastards" or maybe even "Those Oriental overlords" but I didn't.

I think the best thing for you would be to go to www.m-w.com and look up some of these worse you're using.

As for price gouging- Sony does, as stated above. They're not the only ones, but stating a fact is not making a biggoted remark on my part. And as for your dislike of M$, I'm almost positive, almost, you could have come up with a better way to express it than you did. Seriously, are you a professional Troll, or do you have some point to make?

[Puffa469]

all of Sony negative problems started when they announced that the PS3 was going to be 600 dollars.


Their problems started when they decided to shoehorn in unecessary Bluray tech into their new game console, thus making the new console prohibitively expensive.

During the PS2 era, Sony's Playstation division was the biggest (only) moneymaker for the company. So they decided to leverage that success to help launch a new media format. They comprimised their videogame success to help their floundering consumer electronics division, and so far it hasnt worked.

Sony hitched their thoroughbred Playstation horse to a legacy of failed proprietary media formats. Betamax. Minidisc. UMD. Bluray?

Gmaers who just wanted to play the next, newest playstation console resented being forced to pay a premium and adopt some new tech they may not even care about.

Gamers dont want a 'do everything home media hub ina box' to take over their livingrooms. They want a great videogame console that plays kickass videogames. Sony failed to provide that and now they are struggling.

[whoknows]

Because I no longer own either of those systems, and I do, however, own a 360.

Ta-da! Do try reading the thread before commenting :)
Point is we were talking about 360 exclusives and Halo 1 and 2 are NOT 360 exclusives, they are Xbox exclusives. Just because they can be played on the 360 does not make them exclusive.

[meesterjojo]

I wouldn't say bigot but your statements don't make sense. You say you only like western themed-games and thats the reason why you don't like sony, but you mentioned Katamari as one of the 360 exclusives that you were interested in. That game is about as japanese as you can get, and the series started on PS2.

Sorry, I included 1 game which did interest me which is eastern in nature. Forgive me not stopping to leave a side-note at the time.

Beyond that is there anything else I can clarify?

Honestly, I would hope that people would be able to, I dunno, "read between the lines", but I suppose too that society nowadays needs to be lead by the hands, told what to do, where to go. So please, folks, tell me where I can take you?

[whoknows]

Their problems started when they decided to shoehorn in unecessary Bluray tech into their new game console, thus making the new console prohibitively expensive.
Isn't blu-ray part of the reason UT3 is coming out on the PS3 before the 360?

[meesterjojo]

Point is we were talking about 360 exclusives and Halo 1 and 2 are NOT 360 exclusives, they are Xbox exclusives. Just because they can be played on the 360 does not make them exclusive.

Sigh, they're Xbox exclusives which can be played on your 360.

Really, see my last post- ya'll really need to start "thinking beyond your noses"/reading between the lines a little.

It's like ya'll are really trying to dig hard, but not deep, to find fault. You get hung up on 1 thing, and you use it as some shining symbol of justification: "HA HA I got him now!"

[Dr Mario Kart]

Isn't blu-ray part of the reason UT3 is coming out on the PS3 before the 360?

Not if the PC version is out on DVDs before either of them.

[whoknows]

Sigh, they're Xbox exclusives which can be played on your 360.

Really, see my last post- ya'll really need to start "thinking beyond your noses"/reading between the lines a little.

It's like ya'll are really trying to dig hard, but not deep, to find fault. You get hung up on 1 thing, and you use it as some shining symbol of justification: "HA HA I got him now!"
Backwards compatible games don't count as exclusives, I don't know why you can't understand that, if they did the PS3 would be the greatest system ever, but they don't.

[whoknows]

Not if the PC version is out on DVDs before either of them.
How many DVD's is it on? I can't imagine playing UT3 on a console and having to change discs.

Besides, you install it on a PC, you aren't actually playing it off the disc, so that argument is irrelevant.

[Puffa469]

Isn't blu-ray part of the reason UT3 is coming out on the PS3 before the 360?

Not from what Ive read. UT3 is coming to PS3 first because thats the format Epic concentrated development on because its an 'open' format, more like PC, where user created content and mods will be free and easily implimented. Epic doesnt like Microsofts pay per download, everything must be pre-approved controls over Live content.

Thats one of the things I like about the PS3.

I havent seen any example of a game on bluray that couldnt be done just as well on a DVD, or multiple DVDs.

Bluray has more storage, but PS3 has half the memory of the 360, so there are bottlenecks that seem to prevent the benefits of blurays massive storahe from ever coming to fruition.

[meesterjojo]

Backwards compatible games don't count as exclusives, I don't know why you can't understand that, if they did the PS3 would be the greatest system ever, but they don't.

If I can play it on my system, and another manufacturers series cannot, then it's fairly exclusive. I see what you're saying though, but your assertion that the PS3 would be the greatest system ever is still subjective. I feel the TurboDUO would be the greatest system ever: huge number of games, a lot of which were CD based RPG's, and backwards compatable with every. single. one of the TG-16 games. That's a lot of games.

Yea verily- I'm a huge TurboDUO fan, which if you're keen, you'll find humor in because of my previous statements regarding a preference for western themes.

[Puffa469]

How many DVD's is it on? I can't imagine playing UT3 on a console and having to change discs.

Besides, you install it on a PC, you aren't actually playing it off the disc, so that argument is irrelevant.

It may work the same way on the PS3. Since all PS3's have a hdd (a great move on Sonys part, and a definite misstep for Microsoft), the game may very well save a bunch of its content to the hdd, and merely require you to have the game disc in the drive to play.

Thats how the last UT for the PC worked. I had the SIX cd version, and once installed, I only needed to have disc one in the drive to play, to verify that I had a physical copy of the game.

[vera]

Please read everything before commenting- we've already covered relevancy/invidual likes and dislikes, why are you attacking me based on my preferences, which were clearly stated?

My attacks on the country of origin? If the truth is an attack on a country, then so be it- Fact: Sony releases consoles and games cheaper in Japan/Asia than in America. Fact: Sony releases more titles which are Eastern in nature than first party titles which are Western in nature. For example, look at a the difference between a Japanese RPG and a Western one: Final Fantasy vs. Oblivion. I'm not asking which you prefer, but to look at the differences as an example.

It's not like I stated something like: "The Japanese have a history of producing games in which underage children use piles of shit, piss, and vomit as a weapon to defeat enemies". Now that *MIGHT* be a biggoted statement on my part...except it's true, they did for the TG-16.

Now, let me take a little side step here, if I were to say "Those slope bastards" or maybe even "Those Oriental overlords" but I didn't.

I think the best thing for you would be to go to www.m-w.com (http://www.m-w.com) and look up some of these worse you're using.

As for price gouging- Sony does, as stated above. They're not the only ones, but stating a fact is not making a biggoted remark on my part. And as for your dislike of M$, I'm almost positive, almost, you could have come up with a better way to express it than you did. Seriously, are you a professional Troll, or do you have some point to make?

I do not have a personal vendetta towards MS (i own all three next gen consoles and still use my original xbox for xbmc). it just seems like you're favoring one and bashing the other for not much of a good reason. branding it as a blight for whatever reason. i understand it's your own opinion - but your comments do shine with ignorance.

and the only reason why i used the word bigot, like i said in my other post, is because your posts were attacking it because it releases japanese related games and that japan hates the west.

[whoknows]

It may work the same way on the PS3. Since all PS3's have a hdd (a great move on Sonys part, and a definite misstep for Microsoft), the game may very well save a bunch of its content to the hdd, and merely require you to have the game disc in the drive to play.

Thats how the last UT for the PC worked. I had the SIX cd version, and once installed, I only needed to have disc one in the drive to play, to verify that I had a physical copy of the game.
The standard HDD was a great move, I'm surprised MS didn't do it. I mean, they did it with the Xbox and then didn't make it standard with the 360? Kinda a weird choice.

As far as PC games go I remember having to install FEAR off 5 discs.

Good times :lol:

[Rozz]

If you are going to count Xbox games why not also count every PS1/PS2 game?

Because 40 GB PS3s dont support those games.

[Puffa469]

If I can play it on my system, and another manufacturers series cannot, then it's fairly exclusive.

PS1 and PS2 games arent 'exclusive' to the PS3 because you can play them on a PS2. A system which costs 1/4th of what the PS3 costs. You cant count those games cos you dont need a PS3 to play them.

Counting BC games may or may not make the PS3 the greatest system ever, but it certainly gives it the largest library of any system ever.

[Puffa469]

The standard HDD was a great move, I'm surprised MS didn't do it. I mean, they did it with the Xbox and then didn't make it standard with the 360? Kinda a weird choice.

As far as PC games go I remember having to install FEAR off 5 discs.

Good times :lol:

Yeah the fact that original Xbox had a HDD standard and the 360 doesnt boggles the mind.

This fact is definitely one of developers biggest knocks against 360 development.

Unfortunately the sad truth is that none of consoles (or the PC) are perfect, and we can debate the pros and cons of all of them till the sun comes up. In the end it comes down to which games you like best I guess. In a perfect world everyone would all have all the consoles, and we could play whatever we wanted. :D

[mykevermin]

They don't have achievements. I just can't enough gold motherfuckin' stars, man.

All kidding aside, who the fuck cares what other gamers think?

[Strell]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v297/Einzell/igotchabitchm.jpg

:B

[hcamacho]

Because they Killed the dreamcast with just one word HYPE!!!!

[Rozz]

Because they Killed the dreamcast with just one word HYPE!!!!
And superior software/hardware

[zewone]

How many DVD's is it on? I can't imagine playing UT3 on a console and having to change discs.

Besides, you install it on a PC, you aren't actually playing it off the disc, so that argument is irrelevant.
It's one DVD, so no, Blu-Ray is not the future.

[mrlokievil]

If I can play it on my system, and another manufacturers series cannot, then it's fairly exclusive. I see what you're saying though, but your assertion that the PS3 would be the greatest system ever is still subjective. I feel the TurboDUO would be the greatest system ever: huge number of games, a lot of which were CD based RPG's, and backwards compatable with every. single. one of the TG-16 games. That's a lot of games.

Yea verily- I'm a huge TurboDUO fan, which if you're keen, you'll find humor in because of my previous statements regarding a preference for western themes.

And that right there killed your argument about sony only releasing eastern games. there is no way you can like a system that is almost entirely japanese and then hate another because of it. You can, however, not like a system because the games didn't appeal to you; which i think is what you're going for. You should have just stated that. And the majority of first party sony games are made to appeal to eastern and western audiences, it's the 3rd parties that mainly did eastern games. Also, almost the entire industry used to be japanese.

ps. Halo 1 and 2 can be played on pc, while that still makes them console exclusives, but you can't really use them for this argument.

[hcamacho]

And superior software/hardware



Completely disagree, when the ps2 launched it was at more than a year later that the ps2 proved it was a better system than the DC, and power does not warranty success as proven by the fate of the first xbox and now the wii...

[BattleChicken]

... If this damned thread happens *again* then the terrorists win. Do you want that?!

[Rozz]

Completely disagree, when the ps2 launched it was at more than a year later that the ps2 proved it was a better system than the DC, and power does not warranty success as proven by the fate of the first xbox and now the wii...

SSX was better than anything on the DC at launch.

If you think inferior hardware is a good thing then I don't know what to say about that....

[mykevermin]

:B

I have no bloody idea what that emoticon is supposed to mean.

[Strell]

It's a goofy smiley you dork.

[mykevermin]

Ah, yes. I must go brush up on my internet. "BRB"

[Ice2Dragon]

Ah, yes. I must go brush up on my internet. "BRB"

YMMV when you CML

[Thomas96]

I laugh at what your idea of gaming is about, granted I don't play my personal alone time premium/hardcore gaming hours on my Wii at all, but to call it an interactive board game is just disingenuous.


The Wii is mostly a bunch of minigames, Mario party 8, Wii sports, Wii play, cooking mama, and yes there are some games for the hardcore, Mario, Metroid. Look at Wii fit... just another bunch of mini games to enjoy. Nothing wrong with that... as long as people are having fun w/ the console, that's all that matters. I'm going to get a Wii and I'm going to enjoy it.

People need to stop hating on consoles, if you prefer one over another, then that's fine, but don't dislike one, just to justify your love for another. I like the PS3 controller, that's why its my main console.

One thing about the Wii baffles me.. The Wii w/ its wii mote got people to pick up and play games, (non-gamers) I don't believe that the controller alone is what made people flock to the system in droves. But I'm going to give it shot and enjoy the system, for whatever it is.. console, or interactive boardgame.

[Moxio]

I definitely don't hate Sony. I love my PS2 (and my PS1 when I had it), but I just don't want a PS3. Or their overpriced electronics.

[pete5883]

"600 US Dollars" is why everyone hates Sony, compounded by the fact that Sony followed it up with statements other than "Oh here, let me lower that price for you."

[mxpowar]

I should probably hate Sony because they helped to destroy my favorite console maker, Sega (I say helped because Sega was pretty good at destroying themselves), but I don't because I like the games that I played on the PS1, the PS2, and now the PS3. Some people cite arrogance as a valid reason but when did anyone expect a huge company to be humble especially after the success of the PS1 and PS2? I'm no business major but it's probably a major no-no to be humble in business.

Also, I don't understand why there should be any emotion at all when it comes to a certain company. You don't like the games, don't like the price, don't like the color of the console, whatever, just don't buy it, end of story. The emotion of "hate" should only be reserved for Nazis, KKK members, terrorists, and meter maids. Life's too short to waste it on anything else.

Lastly, I'm a little disappointed that JRPGs, which used to be almost exclusive to Sony's systems, are now more prevalent on the 360 (i.e. Eternal Sonata, Lost Odyssey, Blue Dragon, and even Culdcept Saga). I bought a PS3 because of B/C and because Sony owns the rights to two of my favorite JRPGs, Wild Arms and Arc the Lad, which I expect next-gen sequels to at some point. Now Microsoft is putting out RPGs and on the PS3 RPGs are nowhere to be found. My point is that while I don't hate Sony, they are definitely squandering opportunities left and right, which Microsoft and Nintendo are taking advantage of. Some people might think that JRPGs are niche and Sony should continue focusing on more popular genres like action (Uncharted), platforming (Ratchet), racing (Motorstorm), or FPS (Resistance) but let's not forget what FFVII and FFX did for Sony's system sales. Sony can't afford to wait until 2009 or whenever FFXIII finally comes out. They need more variety in their lineup, like the 360 has, which includes RPGs.

[KingDox]

They did this:

http://www.lik-sang.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lik_Sang

Here is a good one:
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=sony_bullshit

Let me edit this post by saying I will get a PS3 when they release an Sku that plays PS2 games, has rumble, and costs $350. I'm willing to bet that should take about another year.

[apokalipze2]

I don't hate sony either. They just need to make the ps3 a little thinner, the the thing a fucking eyesore

[whoknows]

It's one DVD, so no, Blu-Ray is not the future.
Somehow I don't think it's possible to run it off a DVD without installing it on the PC first.

If I'm wrong though feel free to correct me.

Because 40 GB PS3s dont support those games.
Is the 360 Core BC?

[mykevermin]

Is the 360 Core BC?

'tis now the Arcade.

And it comes with a memory card, so yes, it is BC.

[whoknows]

'tis now the Arcade.

And it comes with a memory card, so yes, it is BC.
My mistake :-P

And that just shows that before the 360 wasn't always BC.

Besides, someone can't really complain about the 40gb not being BC when there are 3 other models that are.

[mykevermin]

They can, and they will. If someone's price ceiling is $400, and they insist on BC, I don't blame them. I do think they should recognize that such a hardware configuration isn't going to happen overnight, and pray to their little deity(s) that PS3 sales trend remain where they are at...because that's the proper scenario for a price drop that suits their needs.

Dropping BC is well and good (better than limiting it via software emulation, IMO), as it creates a clear divide (one that is fuzzy when you think will PS2 Game X play on the 60GB, 80GB, or both?). It may not be what people want.

I, for one, am enjoying the "arrogance" discussions, as if it's a personal affront that a consumer electronics company is domineering, spins facts at best and lies at worst, and rarely, if ever, admits mistakes. IMO, the $600 pricepoint created a post-hoc consideration of Sony as arrogant; one that would not be there if they could have swallowed the revenue losses had they launched at $400. That's pretty much it, IMO. People said "$600? Fuck off!" and followed this up with creating a satisfying backstory about Sony's arrogance. All the "online sucks" and "PS3 has no games" crap was just to remain cognitively consistent. The major catalyst that changed everything was the pricepoint of the PS3.

[zewone]

They can, and they will. If someone's price ceiling is $400, and they insist on BC, I don't blame them. I do think they should recognize that such a hardware configuration isn't going to happen overnight, and pray to their little deity(s) that PS3 sales trend remain where they are at...because that's the proper scenario for a price drop that suits their needs.

Dropping BC is well and good (better than limiting it via software emulation, IMO), as it creates a clear divide (one that is fuzzy when you think will PS2 Game X play on the 60GB, 80GB, or both?). It may not be what people want.

I, for one, am enjoying the "arrogance" discussions, as if it's a personal affront that a consumer electronics company is domineering, spins facts at best and lies at worst, and rarely, if ever, admits mistakes. IMO, the $600 pricepoint created a post-hoc consideration of Sony as arrogant; one that would not be there if they could have swallowed the revenue losses had they launched at $400. That's pretty much it, IMO. People said "$600? Fuck off!" and followed this up with creating a satisfying backstory about Sony's arrogance. All the "online sucks" and "PS3 has no games" crap was just to remain cognitively consistent. The major catalyst that changed everything was the pricepoint of the PS3.
That's your theory.

[mykevermin]

Indeed it is. Because I've discovered other arrogant companies.

They make every fuckin' thing ever. Especially stuff that I own. Electronic and nonelectronic alike. Narcissistic pricks.

Except perhaps Charles Shaw vineyards. $3.39 a bottle, hombre, and $34.00 per case. There are exceptions to every rule, I suppose.

[Dr Mario Kart]

We dont really have to fictionalize a backstory behind the arrogance theory as much as we can just read literal quotes from executives from that time period.

[happy]

I love sony. I bought a PS2 some 5 years ago because it played DVDs out of the box (as opposed to the xbox) and I have over a year of top notch titles still waiting to be played on it before I need to buy anything new. If I had gone with the xbox I would have lost use for it years ago. I liked Halo a lot, Halo 2 was decent and I would have liked to play the kotors, but then I would have been done. Also, I wouldn't pay a monthly fee for online gaming, which I don't have the time to do now anyway since I like to play for a half hour here and there.

PS2=best game lineup of 2007 for me

[willardhaven]

You can't hate Sony since they delivered with the PS2.

I've got over 2 dozen Genesis games on my PS2, a handful of SNES games, I can play all the best PS1 games, and the PS2 library is superb.

The "triple" is a big yawn honestly, and the fact that Sony acted like they won this console war before it even started had everyone rallying against them.

You don't want your customer base itching for a reason to abandon your product.

I think Blu-Ray might be working out for them, I'm going to stick with my PS2 though, PS3 doesn't appeal to me that much (same for the Wii and 360).

[Thomas96]

All companies do things that can be considered arrogant.. Nintendo "quality vs quantity. BS excuse to not have games on the 64. Still waiting on my Robotech Crystal Dreams - [the game that could have saved gametek] :(

Sony with their "rumble is last gen," excuse for not having rumble, then the ken kutaragi, "PS3 will instill discipline" or the "PS3 will sell even if it didn't have games"

MS with them making people who don't pay for live wait to download things.. (bad example maybe)..

buy you guys get the point..

[Mr. Roper]

I hate sony because of the hardware problems I had with my first ps2. I don't even want to go into how frustrating that system became after the disc read errors started. Sony couldnt fix it and I ended trading it in when the pstwo came out. I don't think I could ever be a big Sony guy again even though I still play my ps2 and psp. If they didn't have Metal Gear, they wouldn't have much, not much at all.

[Rozz]

My mistake :-P

And that just shows that before the 360 wasn't always BC.

Besides, someone can't really complain about the 40gb not being BC when there are 3 other models that are.

You're wrong, I know someone who's not buying the PS3 this holiday for their son because they are only willing to spend $400 on it and the 40 GB version doesn't play PS2 games. I can imagine there are tons of people like this. BC is a huge selling point for many people.

[Dr Mario Kart]

I disagree with the point of BC being a huge factor outside of being a nice bullet point on the box.

It didnt even exist until the PS2, and we got along fine. I think if the research done by Microsoft and Sony on the matter (and surely they HAVE looked into it) indicated that it was a big factor, I think they wouldve put significantly more work into it than they have.

The singular thing that Thomas and I agree on is that Sony's most pressing problem is the price, from which all other problems stem. Where we differ is probably that I think that fixing the problem doesnt help once the problem is started because of timing. Developer and consumer momentum is very dificult to turn around once it gets rolling.

[BattleChicken]

I disagree with the point of BC being a huge factor outside of being a nice bullet point on the box.

It didnt even exist until the PS2, and we got along fine. I think if the research done by Microsoft and Sony on the matter (and surely they HAVE looked into it) indicated that it was a big factor, I think they wouldve put significantly more work into it than they have.

The singular thing that Thomas and I agree on is that Sony's most pressing problem is the price, from which all other problems stem. Where we differ is probably that I think that fixing the problem doesnt help once the problem is started because of timing. Developer and consumer momentum is very dificult to turn around once it gets rolling.

Didn't the GBA come out before the PS2? And the GBA played Gameboy games right.

[Furashu]

everyone just loves to hate them cause they won last gens war.
you always hate the "favorite" and now theyre theyre not winning it, everyone loves to bash on them.

the press uses smoke n mirrors to make the ps3 seem like a failure, we never hear any praise of the ps3.

[Rozz]

I disagree with the point of BC being a huge factor outside of being a nice bullet point on the box.

It didnt even exist until the PS2, and we got along fine. I think if the research done by Microsoft and Sony on the matter (and surely they HAVE looked into it) indicated that it was a big factor, I think they wouldve put significantly more work into it than they have.



That was the past. The PS3 doesn't have fancy 16-bit graphics like the Genesis did. BC is a huge selling point for the GBA, PS2, and many other consoles. I have heard many people buy these new consoles because not only would they be able to play their shiny new games on it, but their large collection of old ones too.

[Thomas96]

I hate sony because of the hardware problems I had with my first ps2. I don't even want to go into how frustrating that system became after the disc read errors started. Sony couldnt fix it and I ended trading it in when the pstwo came out. I don't think I could ever be a big Sony guy again even though I still play my ps2 and psp. If they didn't have Metal Gear, they wouldn't have much, not much at all.



Ah come on get over it

[Mechafenris]

Not to pick nits, but the original GBA was BC with GBC titles, but the GBA SP was not, am I correct? The Micro was not either, though I could be wrong... So in a sense, BC is becoming less of a focus even on handhelds... (the DS doesn't play GBC games, to be sure...)

I think BC is becoming less and less of a factor for every company, and we'll see less emphasis on it next time around. Sony made a big deal out of it on the PS2 because they were only on their 2nd generation console... they needed an edge to keep the cycle going, but that's purely speculation on my part.

Sony got bit on the price this go-round. They misread the market's ability to see their console as "entertainment system" rather than "game console w/DVD/blu-ray capability" and thus, we have the price backlash. People spend oodles of money to get AV receivers that do 11.1 supposisound and smellovision, but they won't (or don't want to specifically) spend $600 or $500 on a game console, albeit a nice one, built very solidly (a first for Sony) and capable of more than just games. Sony didn't get that until now. :) Hence the $400 PS3.

Microsoft entered the market for one reason only... to get into the living rooms. They want to be the entertainment hub just like Sony... and these two behemoths are going to duke it out for quite a while... because neither MS nor Sony realize that there can be _more_ than one entertainment center... and unlike the 'one true OS' or 'one true Movie format', we can have multiple players in the living room. MS wants to leverage their OS dominance into a living room "hub" of activity so that if you want to buy a movie, rent a movie, play a song, or play a game, you go through them, and they get a cut of the action (I think the iPod still gives Bill Gates ulcers.)

Sony, by the same token, wants to leverage their extensive A/V experience (and stable of movie and music studios) into a cohesive tie-in that puts your TV, stereo, internet, and games in one shiny black box.... and if you want to record TV, watch movies, rent movies, and surf the internet, you do so through their shiny black box... Or white if you live in Japan. :) Whether or not you agree with Sony's A/V experience being good or bad, they've been around for a long time... (So I'm not handing the crown to them or anything, I'm just framing the argument.)

So, in answer to the OP's original question... it's Sony's turn to be the bad guy. It's been Sega, Nintendo, MS, 3DO, Atari, Coleco, Magnavox, RCA, and so on...... so they drew the "bad guy" card this time.

Next time, it'll probably be Nintendo for "killing the hardcore gamer" or some such nonsense. :)

[Puffa469]

Here is a good one:
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=sony_bullshit


I freakin love Maddox, lol :lol:



Not to pick nits, but the original GBA was BC with GBC titles, but the GBA SP was not, am I correct?

I believe SP's are back compat with GB & GBC games. Its only the micro and the DS/DSL that arent.

[Mechafenris]

I freakin love Maddox, lol :lol:



I believe SP's are back compat with GB & GBC games. Its only the micro and the DS/DSL that arent.

thanks for the clarification... I have a micro and a DS (and sold my original GBA way back when...) but skipped the SP... (I can see why the micro wouldn't have it... the GBC carts are bigger than the unit itself... heh.)

[Dr Mario Kart]

Well, I was thinking only about home consoles :P

[Puffa469]

thanks for the clarification... I have a micro and a DS (and sold my original GBA way back when...) but skipped the SP... (I can see why the micro wouldn't have it... the GBC carts are bigger than the unit itself... heh.)

Thats the same reason the DS/DSL dont have it, space. The DS would have to be physically bigger to keep that compatibility. I think orig GB & GBC games run off a different power spec than GBA & DS games, thus they need a seperate power converter in addition to whatever chipset they require.

[Halo05]

That animated .gif makes me laugh my ass off every time I see it.

[Barnolde]

'tis now the Arcade.

And it comes with a memory card, so yes, it is BC.
What?

You need a hard drive for BC...

[elmyra]

I disagree with the point of BC being a huge factor outside of being a nice bullet point on the box.

It didnt even exist until the PS2, and we got along fine.
http://i11.tinypic.com/6lsdj7m.jpg

This was the first backward compatible console. BC didn't help it against the NES, of course.

[Thomas96]

http://i11.tinypic.com/6lsdj7m.jpg

This was the first backward compatible console. BC didn't help it against the NES, of course.


someone should go back in time and say "hey Atari.... don't worry about that BC"

[Neo]

Sony is a cancer to the industry.

[crazyfoot491]

I don't understand why people can't just pick and choose what systems they own and not look at the brand names, I myself own a DS lite, PSP and xbox 360 so what does that make me a commie? I am blind when it comes to the name, My system choice is purely based on the quality of games that populate that particular machine.

[Vanigan]

Sony is a cancer to the industry.

Any company that goes without competition becomes a cancer to its industry. Sony got cocky with the PS2. Thankfully the 360 was there to step in and provide that much needed competition.

But even though I prefer the PS3, I in no way want the 360 to fail, just like I don't want the PS3 to fail. Just like Sony, MS has shown it can get lethargic and start dropping the quality on a product that it has dominance in.

Those here who actually want either company to fail are fools. Choice and competition is the best thing for us consumers, the closer the two competitors are, the better it becomes for us as we can pick and choose the games we want to play, and the quality of such games and systems go up and prices go down.

[Pucker]

Hate's a strong word. Sony just hasn't delivered the best product. The PS3 is over priced. It hasn't done anything to differentiate itself from the 360. A lot of the system's exclusive games also tend to be a little too Japanese-y for my taste (this how I feel....it's not necessarily true though, the 360 actually gets alot of Japense-y support these days).

The market hates Sony though, in the sense that its sales suck, cause of price. Most people just will not spend over $200 for a game system, end of story. By starting at such a high point and including hardware that's going to make it hard to move down in price (blu-ray & HD), it's going to be hard for Sony to ever get market love, long term, for the PS3. Microsoft will evetually be selling 360's in the sub $200 range at a profit, while Sony will have a tough time breaking even at $300 any time soon.

[Thomas96]

Hate's a strong word. Sony just hasn't delivered the best product. The PS3 is over priced. It hasn't done anything to differentiate itself from the 360. A lot of the system's exclusive games also tend to be a little too Japanese-y for my taste (this how I feel....it's not necessarily true though, the 360 actually gets alot of Japense-y support these days).

The market hates Sony though, in the sense that its sales suck, cause of price. Most people just will not spend over $200 for a game system, end of story. By starting at such a high point and including hardware that's going to make it hard to move down in price (blu-ray & HD), it's going to be hard for Sony to ever get market love, long term, for the PS3. Microsoft will evetually be selling 360's in the sub $200 range at a profit, while Sony will have a tough time breaking even at $300 any time soon.



you don't own a PS3.... there's big difference between overprice, and just plain expensive. PS3 is expensive, but its not overpriced. The PS3 package, went from 600 to 400 in one year. [even though it took a new model to do it] Those 40gb models next year should drop to 300 dollars.

I see that you got some quarrels w/ the PS3, and that's fine, but you have to give it some credit, for being willing to put everything into one box.[60gb at launch] I mean you got the card readers, 4 usb ports, easy to switch(upgrade) hard drive, blu ray, hdmi, 1080p, bluetooth, wireless connectivity. [and you can use it as a personal computer - running linux] - most of what I just listed, either can't be done on 360, or you have to pay extra for it, and if you were to pay extra you'd be over the 600 dollar mark easily.

[Thomas96]

Any company that goes without competition becomes a cancer to its industry. Sony got cocky with the PS2. Thankfully the 360 was there to step in and provide that much needed competition.


I definitely have to agree with that, I like the fact that Sony threw everything they could into the PS3, but expecting it to sell like hotcakes was stupid, and most of all it was unfair to the consumer. You release a system at 600 dollars, there's no way avg consumer can afford that. Games are supposed to be for everyone, not just for the rich and famous. Defeinitely, got to give the 360 some credit for providing an affordable, high quality graphics, HD, machine. IMO its Nintendo, that trying to sell nothing for something.

[mykevermin]

What?

You need a hard drive for BC...

Nope, just a memory device that will hold the tiny lil' driver for the individual Xbox game. A memory card works as fine as a HDD.

Don't get me wrong: only bastards and morons own a 360 with no HDD at all. That's my opinion. But, if those bastards and morons want to play Shenmue II (if they have a hankerin' for a game of "Lucky Hit"), they can do so.

[joserjerr]

you don't own a PS3.... there's big difference between overprice, and just plain expensive. PS3 is expensive, but its not overpriced. The PS3 package, went from 600 to 400 in one year. [even though it took a new model to do it] Those 40gb models next year should drop to 300 dollars.

I see that you got some quarrels w/ the PS3, and that's fine, but you have to give it some credit, for being willing to put everything into one box.[60gb at launch] I mean you got the card readers, 4 usb ports, easy to switch(upgrade) hard drive, blu ray, hdmi, 1080p, bluetooth, wireless connectivity. [and you can use it as a personal computer - running linux] - most of what I just listed, either can't be done on 360, or you have to pay extra for it, and if you were to pay extra you'd be over the 600 dollar mark easily.

I think your selectively using information to make a point. Most of the things that you list are optional on the 360 and somebody just wanting to play games may not want all the things you mentioned.

Do most people care about card readers, usb ports, bluetooth? They just want their systems to work and the technology behind it doesn't matter to most people. Sony's dropping the price and components from the lower SKu's some of what you mentioned may not be there in a year or so. They cut the USB ports in half with the 40GB SKU.

Do you really expect to use your PS3 as a computer? If so my condolences as you must have spent all your money on a PS3 and therefore can't afford a decent computer.

My issues with the PS3:

- Not all the SKU's are backwards compatible. Even to confuse the situation more the systems have different levels of BC depending on the hardware. The 360 provides the same level of BC for all SKU's. Is the level of BC listed on the box even for when parents are in the store? That's deceptive IMO if the info is not there as full BC is something Sony has preached in the past.

= Online service - Yes the PSN network is free but you get what you pay for. XBOX Live is a vastly superior service for which the grumbling in the gaming community has subsided as gamers have been exposed to what Sony and Nintendo have to offer as an online experience..

- Does every gamer need Blu-Ray? Am I buying a gaming console or a movie player because I'm not sure Sony really knows what they are selling from their marketing campaign. That's probably why they swithed advertising companies recently to the Deutsch.

- Yes the 360 has HDMI and 1080 capability on newer modesls so what's your point? If your going to rip MS for adding this functionality to later units you should also mention Sony is removing functionality from the PS3's to cut price.

- Do you read the gamng news at all? Sony's practices just reak of someone that expects to ship a console and everyone will just run out and buy it because it says SONY. In most cases, game exclusivity is a thing of the past which helped Sony prevail over the other consoles in years past, except for the annoying timed exclusives.

- Where are the games beyond Ratchet & Clank and Uncharted?

- Let's take the lack of rumble in the PS3 controller for instance as Sony didn't want to settle a lawsuit with Immersion and considered rumble so "last gen". Gamers demand rumble and Sony settles. They brand the new controller with Dual Shock 3 and have some gaming journalists, "I use the word journalists loosely", touting Sony and their rumble functionality. One of the staffers at 1UP even goes on to say the he can feel how rumble is specific so the game as his colleagues call BS! Rumble is rumble people!

- Their perceived unwillingness to assist third-party developers in creating games for the PS3. That's probably how we ended up with the crappy SixAxis controls of Lair and the framerate differences in the sports games like Madden.

I probably could go on but I'll cut it off there.

[Puffa469]

I wish I had a PS3, cos if I did I'd be playin the hell outta some Uncharted: Drakes Fortune.

I wouldnt call it a system seller, but Im still jealous of everyone who's getting to play it.



Sonys initial strategy was to give you everything you could ever need in one box. Card readers, USB, Bluray, HDD, Back Compat, etc. You got everything but the cable. And that made the system expensive. Its a strategy that didnt work out as well as they had hoped, and now they are releasing lower cost models with alot of those features cut.

Microsoft had the opposite strategy. Release a console as cheap and bare bones as possible, and then offer 'premium' versions, or nickel and dime you to death for all the extras like play n charge kits, HD dvd drives, hdd's, memory cards, wireless headsets, whatever. This strategy has its own set of problems as I believe that making the HDD optional was a huge mistake on Microsofts part.


Im glad Sony is losing ground to Microsoft, but I dont want Sony to fail. Competition breeds innovation, and brings out the best in any company, thats why fanboyishness is soo stupid. If Sony failed the 360 owners would be worse off for it, and vice versa.

[whoknows]

I think your selectively using information to make a point. Most of the things that you list are optional on the 360 and somebody just wanting to play games may not want all the things you mentioned.

Do most people care about card readers, usb ports, bluetooth? They just want their systems to work and the technology behind it doesn't matter to most people. Sony's dropping the price and components from the lower SKu's some of what you mentioned may not be there in a year or so. They cut the USB ports in half with the 40GB SKU.
USB ports are pretty important nowadays. Especially for peripherals such as the guncon, guitar, 3rd party accessories.

Do you really expect to use your PS3 as a computer? If so my condolences as you must have spent all your money on a PS3 and therefore can't afford a decent computer.
I don't, I expect it to be a gaming system and it has met my expectations easily.

My issues with the PS3:

- Not all the SKU's are backwards compatible. Even to confuse the situation more the systems have different levels of BC depending on the hardware. The 360 provides the same level of BC for all SKU's. Is the level of BC listed on the box even for when parents are in the store? That's deceptive IMO if the info is not there as full BC is something Sony has preached in the past.
Do you not need a HDD for BC with the 360? Besides that, 360 BC is pretty much garbage. Just about every PS1/PS2 game works with the PS3 and it upscales them.

= Online service - Yes the PSN network is free but you get what you pay for. XBOX Live is a vastly superior service for which the grumbling in the gaming community has subsided as gamers have been exposed to what Sony and Nintendo have to offer as an online experience..
PSN may not be as good as LIVE, but it works well. People (like you) make it sound a lot worse than it really is.

- Does every gamer need Blu-Ray? Am I buying a gaming console or a movie player because I'm not sure Sony really knows what they are selling from their marketing campaign. That's probably why they swithed advertising companies recently to the Deutsch.
As far as gaming, we'll see in the future how much blu-ray will make a difference, otherwise the PS3 is a cheap blu-ray player and people bought it just for that reason.

- Yes the 360 has HDMI and 1080 capability on newer modesls so what's your point? If your going to rip MS for adding this functionality to later units you should also mention Sony is removing functionality from the PS3's to cut price.
Only 1 SKU with the PS3 had features removed and it is the cheapest version, can't expect everything when you buy the cheapest model. If someone can afford $400 for the 40gb they might as well just pay $500 for twice the amount of HDD space and BC. And don't forget howMS slapped silver users in the face by making them wait for content.

- Do you read the gamng news at all? Sony's practices just reak of someone that expects to ship a console and everyone will just run out and buy it because it says SONY. In most cases, game exclusivity is a thing of the past which helped Sony prevail over the other consoles in years past, except for the annoying timed exclusives.

- Where are the games beyond Ratchet & Clank and Uncharted?[\QUOTE]

Considering that the PS3 had more big exclusives for the fall/winter than the 360, you should be asking "what's after mass effect and halo?" because that's all the 360 had while the PS3 had Heavenly Sword, Ratchet, Uncharted, Time Crisis 4, and Unreal Tournament 3 this week.

[QUOTE]- Let's take the lack of rumble in the PS3 controller for instance as Sony didn't want to settle a lawsuit with Immersion and considered rumble so "last gen". Gamers demand rumble and Sony settles. They brand the new controller with Dual Shock 3 and have some gaming journalists, "I use the word journalists loosely", touting Sony and their rumble functionality. One of the staffers at 1UP even goes on to say the he can feel how rumble is specific so the game as his colleagues call BS! Rumble is rumble people![\QUOTE]

Yes, rumble is rumble and I could care less about it. People care, I don't. I honestly don't see the appeal with rumble. If it's there cool, if not I don't give a shit.

[QUOTE]- Their perceived unwillingness to assist third-party developers in creating games for the PS3. That's probably how we ended up with the crappy SixAxis controls of Lair and the framerate differences in the sports games like Madden.
LAIR was 1st party I believe, and the developers of LAIR wanted the Sixaxis controls.

I probably could go on but I'll cut it off there.
Good choice.

[Strell]

I wish I had a PS3, cos if I did I'd be playin the hell outta some Uncharted: Drakes Fortune.

I wouldnt call it a system seller, but Im still jealous of everyone who's getting to play it.


Don't worry.

6 hours later and they're in the same boat as you.

[mykevermin]

I'm not going to go back and forth in this thread, but I would like to chime in again, if only for a moment.

My issues with the PS3:

- Not all the SKU's are backwards compatible. Even to confuse the situation more the systems have different levels of BC depending on the hardware. The 360 provides the same level of BC for all SKU's. Is the level of BC listed on the box even for when parents are in the store? That's deceptive IMO if the info is not there as full BC is something Sony has preached in the past.

The information is on the box, yes. Additionally, as a consumer, you know which systems offer which levels of BC; so if it matters, or does not matter, to you, then you buy the one that matters accordingly. It isn't perfect, but the information is available to the public ahead of time - why blame Sony if someone isn't sharp enough to do research before buying anything, let alone a $400-500 console? Is it MS' fault if I want an Xbox 360 and buy a Core/Arcade, thinking that I can't wait to play all the arcade titles on it? Or watch an HD DVD film? Or download a 6GB movie from XBLM? I can't really do either (the former much, of course, but the latter two at all) on the system - but is that my fault for buying a 360 without a hard drive, or MS' fault for all the SKUs?

Is it my fault if I don't support free trade/globalization and the effect on the American economy, but I buy Nike shoes without looking on the box to see if it says "Made in Indonesia," a shirt at WM without looking to see if it says "Made in China," and so on? Of course it is. That information is there, and it's a matter of degrees. When that information is there, and available, you can't claim the consumer is a victim because they won't look things up before buying something.

= Online service - Yes the PSN network is free but you get what you pay for. XBOX Live is a vastly superior service for which the grumbling in the gaming community has subsided as gamers have been exposed to what Sony and Nintendo have to offer as an online experience..

You aren't really saying much here. What differences are there in PSN and XBL for games that are on both systems? Few, if any. In game friend list invites are, IMO, the major difference. That's significant, and something PSN should offer. Nevertheless, since you're only playing with 4-16 (give or take) people at a time, what's the larger population of online gamers matter? If you can demonstrate that there are PS3 online communities that are "dead" while the same game is still thriving on the 360, then you have a point. I doubt you can do that, however. Far fewer people play COD4 on the PS3, but you'll never be left waiting. It's a moot point, I'm afraid.

Now, on the content front, Sony's paltry offerings leaves a great deal to be desired compared to the 360. There is room for improvement on that front.

- Does every gamer need Blu-Ray? Am I buying a gaming console or a movie player because I'm not sure Sony really knows what they are selling from their marketing campaign. That's probably why they swithed advertising companies recently to the Deutsch.

Why don't you decide if you're buying a gaming console or a movie player? You can do both or just one, or neither, if you so choose. If the capacity and advantage of BR doesn't prove itself in every game disc out there, it's not a huge problem. If it shows it off in some (Uncharted) and not others (Assassin's Creed? Just a guess - substitute with any other multiplatform title), it's not the end of the world. Those that do need the space are not inherently better or worse - they just need more space.

At some point, you'll find that BR's advantages will show themselves quite clearly. If not, let me respond to your question with both an answer and another question.
Answer: *every* gamer? Of course not.
Question: Does every gamer looking to buy a PS2 need DVD? If you think so, defend your position.

- Yes the 360 has HDMI and 1080 capability on newer modesls so what's your point? If your going to rip MS for adding this functionality to later units you should also mention Sony is removing functionality from the PS3's to cut price.

The functionality (BC/USB ports) aren't entirely gone. They're there if you want them, and they aren't if you don't need them. Allow me to ask you this: does *EVERY* gamer need BC? ;) Or does your "does every gamer need _____" question only fly when it supports your preconceived notions of disliking Sony and/or the PS3?

Want 'em? Buy a 60/80GB. Don't want 'em? Buy a 40GB. Where's the problem?

- Do you read the gamng news at all? Sony's practices just reak of someone that expects to ship a console and everyone will just run out and buy it because it says SONY. In most cases, game exclusivity is a thing of the past which helped Sony prevail over the other consoles in years past, except for the annoying timed exclusives.

heh. I don't get why people take what Sony say so personally. But they do, I suppose. If we're going to be offended by company presentations and PR, and dare single out one company over the others, I think that's pretty indicative of pretty righteous bias. Poor Perrin Kaplan never gets her due for being a numbskull, and the sheer narcissism of Nintendo's E3 keynote is left by the wayside, whereas "you'll have to work overtime to buy a PS3" is remembered. Are they all obnoxious and cocksure? Oh yes. No doubt about it.

- Where are the games beyond Ratchet & Clank and Uncharted?

Oh, that's right. There are none. At all. Warhawk? Not a game. Heavenly Sword? Not a game either. Tekken Online? Nope. Eye of Judgment? Unreal Tournament III? Haze? Lawd 'amighty, kid - you have to TRY to avoid PS3 news/reports if you really think there is nothing worth owning on the system. A sort of "LALALAICANTHEARYOU" approach. Notice I'm not saying "this other system or that system has fewer good games than the PS3," I'm saying "The PS3 has good games period." If you want to argue against that, well, I'm sure you have a lot of cognitive dissonance to repair in remaining determined that Sony is going to come to your house and burn your Xbox because they're so arrogant and pointed directly at you.

- Let's take the lack of rumble in the PS3 controller for instance as Sony didn't want to settle a lawsuit with Immersion and considered rumble so "last gen". Gamers demand rumble and Sony settles. They brand the new controller with Dual Shock 3 and have some gaming journalists, "I use the word journalists loosely", touting Sony and their rumble functionality. One of the staffers at 1UP even goes on to say the he can feel how rumble is specific so the game as his colleagues call BS! Rumble is rumble people!

1) Rumble is not "just" rumble.
2) Corporate spin is corporate spin, ever since well before your grandparents were in diapers. Don't be afraid when it's so transparent (e.g., rumble is "last-gen") - be afraid of when you can't see it.

Remember how we all had a great big gut-busting guffaw over how Sony insisted that 1080p was "true HD"? What a joke that was, right? Or was it just a joke when Sony said it, and then it became an awesome update to the 360 when they added 1080p functionality to their system?

- Their perceived unwillingness to assist third-party developers in creating games for the PS3. That's probably how we ended up with the crappy SixAxis controls of Lair and the framerate differences in the sports games like Madden.

I probably could go on but I'll cut it off there.

You are making attributions incorrectly, when it's quite clear that, in the case of Madden, EA had 1.5-2+ years of working with the 360's hardware advantage over the PS3. Sony should have gotten it into their hands sooner, but they didn't. We'll see if these differences remain next year, or if EA and other developers take advantage of the PS3's architecture the same way they do with the Wii.

Also, you're really going to complain about 30/60FPS as if it's significant? The PS3 sure has some sharp knees, doesn't it, pal? :lol:

LAIR...well, it's terrible, and I would chalk it up to the developer not allowing for sixaxis control to be turned off. Whether that is Sony's call or Factor 5's, I don't know. Lair is quite the anomaly, and not representive of the quality of PS3 games on the whole, despite the willingness of people like you to say that it is.

[Thomas96]

I think your selectively using information to make a point. Most of the things that you list are optional on the 360 and somebody just wanting to play games may not want all the things you mentioned

Do most people care about card readers, usb ports, bluetooth? They just want their systems to work and the technology behind it doesn't matter to most people. Sony's dropping the price and components from the lower SKu's some of what you mentioned may not be there in a year or so. They cut the USB ports in half with the 40GB SKU.




~ [thomas96] people do like card readers, make life a little easier. That's why they're included with ever decent laptop available nowadays. Sony made a barebones PS3.. but would you have rather have the 399 40gb barebones ps3, and then release the "better 600 dollar version" later? Its better to put out the best skus first, rather than trying to make better skus [xbox elite with PS3 HDMI that should have been included initially] because some people want the best version.


Do you really expect to use your PS3 as a computer? If so my condolences as you must have spent all your money on a PS3 and therefore can't afford a decent computer.


~[thomas 96] why not use it if its available.. the reason I don't, because I'm too lazy to back up my drive and partition my hard drive. Otherwise, I'd use the linux at least for homebrew.. but even if most don't, at least those who want to... CAN.


My issues with the PS3:

- Not all the SKU's are backwards compatible. Even to confuse the situation more the systems have different levels of BC depending on the hardware. The 360 provides the same level of BC for all SKU's. Is the level of BC listed on the box even for when parents are in the store? That's deceptive IMO if the info is not there as full BC is something Sony has preached in the past.



~[thomas 96] why do you care about what certain skus have - pick the one that suits your specific needs. Also, you know its unrealistic to have all the games that are compatible listed on the box. The best anyone can do is have the information available on the website.


= Online service - Yes the PSN network is free but you get what you pay for. XBOX Live is a vastly superior service for which the grumbling in the gaming community has subsided as gamers have been exposed to what Sony and Nintendo have to offer as an online experience..




~[thomas96] you know... list out the features of xbox live and psn, and you'll see what you're paying doesn't really give you THAT much more.



- Does every gamer need Blu-Ray? Am I buying a gaming console or a movie player because I'm not sure Sony really knows what they are selling from their marketing campaign. That's probably why they swithed advertising companies recently to the Deutsch.



~[thomas96] you're buying an entertainment box... something that does everyting, andyou know that if PS3 didn't have upscale you'd have an issue with that, however, now that it 1ups the 360 w/ blu ray included its "does every game need blu ray" and my answer would be yes... for HD gaming. The HD bus is moving, hop on...



- Yes the 360 has HDMI and 1080 capability on newer modesls so what's your point? If your going to rip MS for adding this functionality to later units you should also mention Sony is removing functionality from the PS3's to cut price.




~[thomas96] do you think it was fair to the early 360 adopters to release a better version... there were some who probably wanted the better machine from day one, but they missed out because MS was trying to keep up with PS3 instead of making it available from day one.



- Do you read the gamng news at all? Sony's practices just reak of someone that expects to ship a console and everyone will just run out and buy it because it says SONY. In most cases, game exclusivity is a thing of the past which helped Sony prevail over the other consoles in years past, except for the annoying timed exclusives.




~[thomas96] say what you will about Sony, but they put together an impressive piece of hardware, and they were the ones were rushing to market, they were the ones who we though would have faulty machines. Almost every launch xbox is dead now... RROD.


- Where are the games beyond Ratchet & Clank and Uncharted?




~[thomas96]
[please check the PS3 upcoming release forum] and Unreal Tournament 3 comes out on Tuesday.



- Let's take the lack of rumble in the PS3 controller for instance as Sony didn't want to settle a lawsuit with Immersion and considered rumble so "last gen". Gamers demand rumble and Sony settles. They brand the new controller with Dual Shock 3 and have some gaming journalists, "I use the word journalists loosely", touting Sony and their rumble functionality. One of the staffers at 1UP even goes on to say the he can feel how rumble is specific so the game as his colleagues call BS! Rumble is rumble people!


~[thomas96] So one journalist says something positive about the DS3, and Cheapy [celebrated 360 fan.err.. boy] says something negative. I'll see for myself when I buy my own.




- Their perceived unwillingness to assist third-party developers in creating games for the PS3. That's probably how we ended up with the crappy SixAxis controls of Lair and the framerate differences in the sports games like Madden.


~[thomas96] I played Lair, I don't think you have.. Lair is not crappy... its not popular, but its controls are actually pretty good. I rented the game, cause I want my own opinion, and I don't want to echo what I've read. So in my own true opinion Lair played well, the bad thing about that game is that Factor 5 made it too similar to Rogue Squadron, which is not the fault of Sony not helping, them, rather a testiment to how lazy some dev teams can be.



I probably could go on but I'll cut it off there.





~[thomas96] Honestly, are these your opinions or are you just voicing the opinions of others. Most of these arguments are tired, and played out and we've moved on.

[jer7583]

I was a big PS1 and PS2 fan, and don't give a shit about PS3. I even like my PSP. I blame Blu-Ray, High Prices, Shitty Online, and Lack of games/Crappy ports.

[Corvin]

You are making attributions incorrectly, when it's quite clear that, in the case of Madden, EA had 1.5-2+ years of working with the 360's hardware advantage over the PS3. Sony should have gotten it into their hands sooner, but they didn't. We'll see if these differences remain next year, or if EA and other developers take advantage of the PS3's architecture the same way they do with the Wii.

I'm going to cry foul on this one. Everyone forgets that the PS3 was slated to launch alongside the 360 in '05. Developers had system specs to go off of to start developing in early '05. So in fact developers have already had 2.5 years with the PS3, same as 360. They may not have had a final dev kit in hand but if they were planning to launch in '05, games would have already been in development before then.

So in fact, Sony developers had an entire extra year of development for launch. PS3 launch titles should have been comparable to Gears of War. Considering the extra year, it also boggles the mind why PSN is so lacking compared to Live. All they had to do was crib features from a launch 360 and incorporate them into the PS3 over the next year before the PS3 was released.

Don't worry.

6 hours later and they're in the same boat as you.

Ouch. I think it's closer to 10 hours though. ;)

[Cthulhu8u]

I was a big PS1 and PS2 fan, and don't give a shit about PS3. I even like my PSP. I blame Blu-Ray, High Prices, Shitty Online, and Lack of games/Crappy ports.
Is this, like, supposed to be a bad thing, or just a poor attempt at gaining that illustrious Sony street cred? :lol:

I don't even want to get involved, but if I were a lesser man, this thread would make me feel shame about owning a PS3. Kind of like a person who would knowingly pay someone to buy ammo to shoot kittens with. Yet here I am, happy as can be, I still haven't thrown it out, sold it to some blind kid ("yeah kid, I swear it's a 360 Core!"), or given it to Goodwill.

Blu-Ray hasn't hurt anyone (I even hear it's selling well), the console's prices have dropped, the online is eons ahead of the Wii's (and that's my Ninny-loving friend's opinion, not mine. Actually after he showed me the Wii channel stuff, I now share his opinion), and the system's only been out for 13 months so did you expect an instant gaming renaissance? The 360 has recently gotten its act together, and it has a few years on Sony.

Everyone has an opinion, I support that. It's just that some of the arguments here are so personal, it makes me think the money you spent on a console is better spent on a therapist. You'd think Sony went to your house, stole your bike, kicked your dog, and fondled your sister. Unless you personally own stock in the company, why do you care so much? If half of you Negative Nelsons even owned a PS3, then you might have a reason to complain (I do, and I don't). Yet so many of you are in the Sony forum. You're either trolling or closet Sonysexuals.

This thread is quite retarded, as it seems to be a haven for several bashing-lurker types who act like flies that only come out when they smell poop. But my shame lies more towards those who like the console, and continue to post in defence here of the PS3. It's those to whom I plead with now: Ignore this thread before you become a tag at the bottom of some :censored: admin's sig.

Now I'm off to use my crappy overpriced non-console to play one of those nonexistent online games and have loads of non-fun. Because that's how we PS3 users ROLL.

[mxpowar]

Is this, like, supposed to be a bad thing, or just a poor attempt at gaining that illustrious Sony street cred? :lol:

I don't even want to get involved, but if I were a lesser man, this thread would make me feel shame about owning a PS3. Kind of like a person who would knowingly pay someone to buy ammo to shoot kittens with. Yet here I am, happy as can be, I still haven't thrown it out, sold it to some blind kid ("yeah kid, I swear it's a 360 Core!"), or given it to Goodwill.

Blu-Ray hasn't hurt anyone (I even hear it's selling well), the console's prices have dropped, the online is eons ahead of the Wii's (and that's my Ninny-loving friend's opinion, not mine. Actually after he showed me the Wii channel stuff, I now share his opinion), and the system's only been out for 13 months so did you expect an instant gaming renaissance? The 360 has recently gotten its act together, and it has a few years on Sony.

Everyone has an opinion, I support that. It's just that some of the arguments here are so personal, it makes me think the money you spent on a console is better spent on a therapist. You'd think Sony went to your house, stole your bike, kicked your dog, and fondled your sister. Unless you personally own stock in the company, why do you care so much? If half of you Negative Nelsons even owned a PS3, then you might have a reason to complain (I do, and I don't). Yet so many of you are in the Sony forum. You're either trolling or closet Sonysexuals.

This thread is quite retarded, as it seems to be a haven for several bashing-lurker types who act like flies that only come out when they smell poop. But my shame lies more towards those who like the console, and continue to post in defence here of the PS3. It's those to whom I plead with now: Ignore this thread before you become a tag at the bottom of some :censored: admin's sig.

Now I'm off to use my crappy overpriced non-console to play one of those nonexistent online games and have loads of non-fun. Because that's how we PS3 users ROLL.
Amen, brother.

[mykevermin]

I'm going to cry foul on this one. Everyone forgets that the PS3 was slated to launch alongside the 360 in '05. Developers had system specs to go off of to start developing in early '05. So in fact developers have already had 2.5 years with the PS3, same as 360. They may not have had a final dev kit in hand but if they were planning to launch in '05, games would have already been in development before then.

So in fact, Sony developers had an entire extra year of development for launch. PS3 launch titles should have been comparable to Gears of War. Considering the extra year, it also boggles the mind why PSN is so lacking compared to Live. All they had to do was crib features from a launch 360 and incorporate them into the PS3 over the next year before the PS3 was released.

To be fair, though, having the specs =/= having dev kits and the tools on hand, so it's a pretty apples to oranges comparison.

As for PSN, while I am by no means going to defend (much) of it, it's incorrect to say it had an extra year on Live, which has been around for 5 years. XBL is very well integrated overall, and I don't see any shortcomings in the online gaming side (save for in-game friends lists and invites, which, while a huge omission, aren't a critical blow to the PSN's functionality - though they should have been fucking added by now) of the PSN.

I see a huge imbalance in content that makes PSN pale in comparison, but that's something different from the online gaming side. And, also, something Sony should be busting ass trying to reconcile.

[Thomas96]

To be fair, though, having the specs =/= having dev kits and the tools on hand, so it's a pretty apples to oranges comparison.

As for PSN, while I am by no means going to defend (much) of it, it's incorrect to say it had an extra year on Live, which has been around for 5 years. XBL is very well integrated overall, and I don't see any shortcomings in the online gaming side (save for in-game friends lists and invites, which, while a huge omission, aren't a critical blow to the PSN's functionality - though they should have been fucking added by now) of the PSN.

I see a huge imbalance in content that makes PSN pale in comparison, but that's something different from the online gaming side. And, also, something Sony should be busting ass trying to reconcile.


Sony [bmg] has more content available on XBL, than they do on PSN. Sony as a whole can't even work together right. I'd love to be able to download music videos, and some movies.

[jer7583]

I like playing Virtua Fighter 5 online
I like getting the better version of orange box over a month earlier
I like tracking my stats on bungie.net and xbox.com
I like having friends lists that work on all my games
I like using my computer monitor for HD gaming
I like how achivements add value and longevity to my games

Just trying to keep my additions to this thread positive, rather than negative. Those aren't reasons why I hate Sony, they're just reasons why I'll never buy a PS3.

[Thongsy]

Nope, just a memory device that will hold the tiny lil' driver for the individual Xbox game. A memory card works as fine as a HDD.

Don't get me wrong: only bastards and morons own a 360 with no HDD at all. That's my opinion. But, if those bastards and morons want to play Shenmue II (if they have a hankerin' for a game of "Lucky Hit"), they can do so.

You sir, are halfway to convincing me to get a 360. If I wanted to play Halo 3 online, could I still do that without the hard drive? Yes I'm cheap bastard and would get a hdd later but umm yea. Damnit I want my fix of lucky hit.

[opportunity777]

I have a PS3 and owned a PS every generation. I like the PS3, but it's the weakest of the three systems (not technically).

Reasons people probably hate Sony (not a detailed list):

1. Arrogance on Sony's part during their initial marketing campaign.

2. Poor price structure.

3. De-evolution of the PS3 since it came out (old 20 and 60 gigs are superior to the current 40 and 80 gig versions).

4. Poor selection of games.

5. No rumble for the original PS3 controller.

6. One of the two main parties responsible for the current format war between BR and HD-DVD.

7. Uncertain and murky future.

There may be others.

[benjamouth]

Personally I may have held some negative will toward Sony due to their percieved arrogance at the start of this gen, but that's subsiding now.

I think that PS3 was expensive at $600 and initially didn't have enough games out to justify that price, but you can pick one up a lot cheaper now and the really good exclusives are starting to appear, so it looks much more appealing.

I remember in the PS1 days everyone loved Sony, they had bought gaming more into the main stream and we had budget games and fancy 3d graphics. I think with a few more good decisions they could get back to being more popular in gamers eyes.

I don't think it really helps anyone for one company to be completely dominant in the industry. I love my 360 but I want it to have some good competition. I suspect MS could end up evem more arrogant than Sony was if the 360 wins this gen by a long way.

[mykevermin]

I like playing Virtua Fighter 5 online
I like getting the better version of orange box over a month earlier
I like tracking my stats on bungie.net and xbox.com
I like having friends lists that work on all my games
I like using my computer monitor for HD gaming
I like how achivements add value and longevity to my games

Just trying to keep my additions to this thread positive, rather than negative. Those aren't reasons why I hate Sony, they're just reasons why I'll never buy a PS3.

What factual basis do you use to claim that Orange Box is better on the 360? What meangingful, substantive differences are there between the two versions? Do tell indeed.

[Corvin]

What factual basis do you use to claim that Orange Box is better on the 360? What meangingful, substantive differences are there between the two versions? Do tell indeed.

I believe the frame rate is the issue, as it's been stated in a few podcasts. No reviews yet.

[BattleChicken]

What factual basis do you use to claim that Orange Box is better on the 360? What meangingful, substantive differences are there between the two versions? Do tell indeed.

News stories picked up on early builds of the Orange Box for the PS3 having nigh unplayable framerate issues with HL2.. and I think some of the other ones..?: http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/action/halflife2episode2/news.html?sid=6183470

Also, Valve outsourced the development of the PS3 version, because they got sick of trying to get it to run well on the PS3. Valve doesn't give two shits about the quality of the PS3 version. EA is finishing it up:
http://www.joystiq.com/2007/11/25/ps3-version-of-orange-box-might-be-downright-unplayable/

As the PC and Xbox 360 versions have no framerate issues, one COULD say it is superior to the PS3 version.

[mykevermin]

I'll wait for reviews and personal opinions of the final released version, thanks, instead of taking the word of a preview build as gospel truth.

Though better frame rate is better frame rate indeed, I wonder how many of you tended to buy each and every multiplatform title on the Xbox last generation, given the tendency to have progressive scan/HD output (back when 480p was "HD"), and the reduced load times due to HDD cacheing. Very few of you, I bet, given that the PS2 versions of most games sold like free sex on a plate when compared to the Xbox/GC counterparts - even when the Xbox counterparts were demonstrably better.

Y'all ever buy a PS2 Splinter Cell? Yowza. Now there's a world of difference: the content of the game is different because of the technology. It makes this "frame rate" nonsense look like you're just searching for something to hate about the PS3, and the best you can come up with is "nyah nyah 30FPS!"

If HL2 is unplayable, I'll make a half concession, but not a full one. Some of you (not BattleChicken and Corvin) bring up Madden 08's 30FPS like it's the new Genesis Mortal Kombat, and not the same fuckin' game running at a decent FPS, the differences in which are only noticeable when you pair the exact same frames side by side and run them in slow motion. At which point you're no longer a gamer and, instead, just a twat. :lol:

[Corvin]

To be fair, though, having the specs =/= having dev kits and the tools on hand, so it's a pretty apples to oranges comparison.



I'm aware that they are different. All I'm saying is that there had to be some games in development in early '05 at that point to make a fall launch. So by the time dev kits finally rolled around, all that would be needed was some tweaking and polish to go with the final specs. So those games in dev. '05 had an extra year to be perfected for launch. Same with the hardware. It's not like Sony was sitting on their asses that first year the 360 was out. It was a bonus year to perfect things.

Oh well, not a huge issue, just one I always get hung up on. :lol:

[Teh Nitwit]

...
Blu-Ray hasn't hurt anyone (I even hear it's selling well), the console's prices have dropped, the online is eons ahead of the Wii's (and that's my Ninny-loving friend's opinion, not mine. Actually after he showed me the Wii channel stuff, I now share his opinion), and the system's only been out for 13 months so did you expect an instant gaming renaissance? The 360 has recently gotten its act together, and it has a few years on Sony.

Everyone has an opinion, I support that. It's just that some of the arguments here are so personal, it makes me think the money you spent on a console is better spent on a therapist. You'd think Sony went to your house, stole your bike, kicked your dog, and fondled your sister. Unless you personally own stock in the company, why do you care so much? If half of you Negative Nelsons even owned a PS3, then you might have a reason to complain (I do, and I don't). Yet so many of you are in the Sony forum. You're either trolling or closet Sonysexuals.
...

:lol: :applause:

You ask them "why do you care so much?" That's what I wanted to understand and why I started this topic. The answers I was given were nothing more than self-perceived personal offenses.

It's like some people perceived Sony's actions/decisions as personal affronts and then used Sony's slightest blunders as fuel to rationalize their own irrational feelings.

This behavior is very immature and ultimately self-defeating. It is immature because the people making it personal assume that the company "didn't listed to them" (knew what they wanted and didn't care). It is self-defeating because eventually the company will get things "right" and then those same people will have difficulty getting over their hate and do business with that company.

Does anyone care if some CEO's of Ferrari are "arrogant"? Does anyone actually believe that Bill Gates is not? Maturity means understanding that Ferraris and Xbox360s are made by hundreds of people who probably like their CEO much less than you do.

Finally, let me add that BluRay is indeed vital to games and that Sony did the right thing to include it in PS3. I don't say this because of capacity (you could just install on hard disk, like PC games). I say this because of the hard coating that BluRays have. You can rent games and buy them used without having to worry that the disks are scrathed.

PS3 has a lot going for it and anyone who refuses to get one just because of some self-perceived personal affront by Sony is just hurting himself.

[BattleChicken]

I wonder if Nitwit's IP address would be similar to that of TMK?

Unless hes using a proxy.. I dunno.

[benjamouth]

I wonder if Nitwit's IP address would be similar to that of TMK?

This post does read a bit like a TMK post, but with 34% less crazy. We could be doing Nitwit a great dis-service, I'm sure he/she is quite normal.


Finally, let me add that BluRay is indeed vital to games and that Sony did the right thing to include it in PS3. I don't say this because of capacity (you could just install on hard disk, like PC games). I say this because of the hard coating that BluRays have. You can rent games and buy them used without having to worry that the disks are scrathed.

Eh?

[Teh Nitwit]

I wonder if Nitwit's IP address would be similar to that of TMK?

Unless hes using a proxy.. I dunno.

Funny how you are using TMK to make a lame ad hominem attack while showing less class than he ever had. I don't know why he got banned, but I doubt it was because of making personal attacks.

[Teh Nitwit]

Eh?

What? You didn't know that BluRay disks have hard coating and are highly resistant to scratches? Great, you just learned something.

[benjamouth]

What? You didn't know that BluRay disks have hard coating and are highly resistant to scratches? Great, you just learned something.

I didn't know Blu-Ray was essential to gaming because it made the discs harder to scratch, but you're right, I have learned something.

[BattleChicken]

I'll wait for reviews and personal opinions of the final released version, thanks, instead of taking the word of a preview build as gospel truth.

I was just passin' on what I read.

I personally got the PC version of Orange box, which is superior to both console versions. Team Fortress 2 supports more players on the PC version, and at launch the multi player lag for team fortress was painful. (I think patched that problem by now). Also, the MODs man!! There will be next to no mods available for the console versions of Orange Box. PC > all for Orange Box.

Check out this side-by-side comparison of COD4 for the PS3 and 360 (I know its gotten rounds around here previously...):

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/27571.html

There are no tangible differences. Maybe a minor texture thing, or a small color difference, but so similar any arguments saying one is better than the other is nitpicking.

It *is* possible to make 360 games play great on the PS3, and I am fairly confident that it is possible to make PS3 games run great on the 360 (no examples I am aware of to cite where the dev was heavily PS3 focused, then ported 360 -- only the other way around).

Now, IMO, that is part of the PS3's 'problem'. Lets pretend its a few months ago, and that COD is my favorite game series ever, and I plan on buying my next gen console as soon as COD4 comes out.

If I can get it in an identical way on both the high power next gen systems, and the 360 is cheaper, what compelling reason do I have to spend more for the PS3 if the sole reason I'm getting a new console is available for both? Exclusives are irrelevant if the bread and butter of the pre-Wii common gamer is friggin Madden or other EA multiplatform crap.

I was going to bite on a PS3 for Ratchet and Clank Future some time this December, but I have decided to put off a PS3 for another few months, and get Rock Band, a multiplatform title that I want more than R&CF, in stead. In my case, a solid Multi platform title has delayed my adoption of a new console.

Exclusives are certainly important, but how many millions of copies of Madden are sold a year, and how many people buy a new console just for Madden itself?

[Thomas96]

What factual basis do you use to claim that Orange Box is better on the 360? What meangingful, substantive differences are there between the two versions? Do tell indeed.



lol you know he's just echoing things that he's read. If Kotaku hadn't have wrote an article on the Orange box issue concerning PS3 he would not have said what he just said.

[BattleChicken]

Funny how you are using TMK to make a lame ad hominem attack while showing less class than he ever had. I don't know why he got banned, but I doubt it was because of making personal attacks.
Oh no, you misunderstand I'm not attacking anyone. I think you read a lot like TMK, and this topic is VERY similar to stuff he posted. I think you could be him, and I think ruling it out (by having a mod verify the IP addresses used) could be prudent.

For the record, I like TMK, and think his being banned was bullshit, and that his account should be enabled again.

My appologies if you take being compared to TMK as an insult. It isn't. While the very definition of a Fanboy, he most of the time supported his arguments very well, and always made for an interesting read. If you check my post history, somewhere way, way down there, I broke down and called TMK on the fanboy... ness ... and I came off as a total ass because of it.

Then after talking with him over the months, I generally defended him, and always responded to him in a respectful way. I think TMK was more an asset than an ass to CAG, and I miss having him around.

So, in being compared to TMK, I'm saying you're an interesting read. I don't think that is an attack.




As an aside, work is VEEEERRRRRYYYY slow for me today. :cry:

[Teh Nitwit]

Oh no, you misunderstand I'm not attacking anyone. I think you read a lot like TMK, and this topic is VERY similar to stuff he posted. I think you could be him, and I think ruling it out (by having a mod verify the IP addresses used) could be prudent.

For the record, I like TMK, and think his being banned was bullshit, and that his account should be enabled again.

My appologies if you take being compared to TMK as an insult. It isn't. While the very definition of a Fanboy, he most of the time supported his arguments very well, and always made for an interesting read. If you check my post history, somewhere way, way down there, I broke down and called TMK on the fanboy... ness ... and I came off as a total ass because of it.

Then after talking with him over the months, I generally defended him, and always responded to him in a respectful way. I think TMK was more an asset than an ass to CAG, and I miss having him around.

So, in being compared to TMK, I'm saying you're an interesting read. I don't think that is an attack.

As an aside, work is VEEEERRRRRYYYY slow for me today. :cry:

Sorry I made an incorrect assumption.

[BattleChicken]

Sorry I made an incorrect assumption.No harm done!

[mykevermin]

I was just passin' on what I read.

I personally got the PC version of Orange box, which is superior to both console versions. Team Fortress 2 supports more players on the PC version, and at launch the multi player lag for team fortress was painful. (I think patched that problem by now). Also, the MODs man!! There will be next to no mods available for the console versions of Orange Box. PC > all for Orange Box.

I'm ill prepared to have a computer debate. I'm don't game on computers at all, and, in fact, I'm a Mac user. But, since my MacBook Pro is on the porch at the moment, with easy access to my dissertation data/chapters/proposal with it (though it is backed up), waiting to go back to Apple - long story short, since 11/21 it has been, in my hands, working for 2 days (last week after I got it back following repair on a Tuesday, it worked until Thursday). I'm in no shape to have this conversation. :lol:

Check out this side-by-side comparison of COD4 for the PS3 and 360 (I know its gotten rounds around here previously...):

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/27571.html

There are no tangible differences. Maybe a minor texture thing, or a small color difference, but so similar any arguments saying one is better than the other is nitpicking.

Interesting. Not surprising, either. Really, if you watch both Madden 08 versions side by side, at full speed, you may occasionally notice a difference in the frame rate. People really blow that difference out of proportion, and act as if Madden PS3 is an unplayable piece of garbage. Which, if it is, is strictly because it's a Madden title, and that's a crossplatform flaw. ;)

It *is* possible to make 360 games play great on the PS3, and I am fairly confident that it is possible to make PS3 games run great on the 360 (no examples I am aware of to cite where the dev was heavily PS3 focused, then ported 360 -- only the other way around).

The "starting" platform is a valid point; I brought up Splinter Cell earlier (yet nobody in this thread has admitted to buying the "Vastly inferior" (by their current sharp-knees-standards) PS2 versions of multiplatform games last go-round; I'm a little let down by that). Surely the fact that it was originally developed for the Xbox allowed for the benefits it has, in level size, dynamic lighting, load speeds, that the other versions do not have.

It will be interesting to see how games being developed for the PS3 that will make their way to the 360 at a later date (UT3 and Haze come to mind) perform comparatively.

Now, IMO, that is part of the PS3's 'problem'. Lets pretend its a few months ago, and that COD is my favorite game series ever, and I plan on buying my next gen console as soon as COD4 comes out.

If I can get it in an identical way on both the high power next gen systems, and the 360 is cheaper, what compelling reason do I have to spend more for the PS3 if the sole reason I'm getting a new console is available for both? Exclusives are irrelevant if the bread and butter of the pre-Wii common gamer is friggin Madden or other EA multiplatform crap.

Indeed. I think I'm an anomaly for having my reasons, as are the "achievement whore" crowd. Most people (and I hate to say this, as it gives some deference to economists and their way of thinking) simply think "Madden here, Madden there - they don't look different. Gimmie the cheaper console."

Then again, Madden Wii ain't *that* ugly compared to the PS3/360 version, and sold dreadfully. So my theory ain't all that fleshed out. Which is good, because rational choicers can bite the big one. :lol:

I don't think the average consumer is as well-educated as we'd like them to be. They'll buy GTA4 in the same proportions for each console (3-5:1 360:PS3), irrespective of Microsoft shellin' out some ducats to get exclusive DLC for the game.

I was going to bite on a PS3 for Ratchet and Clank Future some time this December, but I have decided to put off a PS3 for another few months, and get Rock Band, a multiplatform title that I want more than R&CF, in stead. In my case, a solid Multi platform title has delayed my adoption of a new console.

Exclusives are certainly important, but how many millions of copies of Madden are sold a year, and how many people buy a new console just for Madden itself?

Quite true. Strangely, I've resigned my PS3 to be my "multiplatform" console, and my 360 is my "exclusive" console. I'll buy GoW, but CoD4 (should I ever be any good at the CoD series, I'll pick it up) will be a PS3 purchase. I don't trust my 360 enough to invest in it beyond 360-exclusive games. To be fair, I did buy two multiplatform games recently for it: (1) Rock Band, because of the X-Plorer guitar compatibility that the PS3 software-only version lacked, and (2) WWE 2008, because it featured custom entrance themes which, again, the PS3 version lacked.

I don't know if RB is a fair comparison, given its price. What kinda glutton would you feel like if you dropped $170 and $460+ in such a time frame? I could be wrong, though.

I don't know how many people buy a new console for Madden, but I believe that the 360 version outsold the PS2 version, which doesn't resolve that it's a bit of a chicken/egg issue (what came first? The next-gen console, or the insatiable desire to have next-gen Madden?).

[Rozz]

When I saw the Time Crisis 4 review in this month's EGM I immediately thought of whoknows :lol:

[Blitz]

Finally, let me add that BluRay is indeed vital to games and that Sony did the right thing to include it in PS3. I don't say this because of capacity (you could just install on hard disk, like PC games). I say this because of the hard coating that BluRays have. You can rent games and buy them used without having to worry that the disks are scrathed.



Blu-ray is not vital to games at all. Important? Debatable but not in any way vital.

[Rozz]

The newest issue of EGM said that the PS3 version of the Orange Box was not handled by Valve and it has frame rate issues not found in the other versions (along with choppiness).

[BattleChicken]

I don't know if RB is a fair comparison, given its price. What kinda glutton would you feel like if you dropped $170 and $460+ in such a time frame? I could be wrong, though.
I technically could buy both... but I don't let myself do that kind of thing. Then again, that restraint is probobly why I can afford to.

Not many games cost $170 USD, though... no question there. Cost is a bigger factor for this title that initially detered me -- I played the demo, though, and really loved it. Then I saw the first downloadable songs. The Black Sabbath song pack is what sealed RB as a purchase for me. If the other DLC is half as good, I'll get many moons of playtime out of rock band.

With the PS3, I'd spend way more money, and beat R&C:F like a drum in a week. Thinking about it as a fiscally responsible gamer, waiting on the PS3, and getting a great party game like Rock Band, that I'll play for months, seemed the wiser choice.

When Starcraft II releases... eventually (I'm hoping for some time before 2011), I may never buy another game... ever, because I'll get so much out of stomping 'foos online.

[hollowfreak]

bleem! is why I hate $ony ...

[cindersphere]

Because they raped my mother and killed my father. Although I am happy they sold my sister into slavery.

[jer7583]

Regardless of what the differences are, people who have played both versions (which include none of us in this thread) say that orange box runs worse on PS3.

Not to mention with how slow the online community is for TF2 on 360, the PS3 version should be a ghost town considering it's many times smaller userbase.

Given the choice between the two (because most of us, even if we could afford it, don't truly have need for both) the vast majority of people would be better served by 360, and thats why you see the vast majority of people buying 360 over PS3. That's just how it is.

[opportunity777]

Supposedly, Bladestorm runs better on PS3 than XBOX 360 (so does Conan). It depends on which game is being compared on the systems.

Early on, the 360 version was the superior version. Now, it seems to be 60% towards 360 and 40% towards PS3.

[zewone]

Supposedly, Bladestorm runs better on PS3 than XBOX 360 (so does Conan). It depends on which game is being compared on the systems.

Early on, the 360 version was the superior version. Now, it seems to be 60% towards 360 and 40% towards PS3.
Where do you get 40% from?

You just named two budget titles that haven't been confirmed as even being superior.:lol:

[mykevermin]

And, lamentably, inferior as games themselves, from what I hear.

[Puffa469]

I think the performance of multiplatform games on a particular system is tied solely to the developer, and the effort they put into the port.

Orange Box does have problems on the PS3 in comparison to its 360 & PC counterparts. But what did you expect? Valve, and specifically Gabe, came out and said: "Eff the PS3, I dont like it, I dont care about it, and if EA wants to publish the game on that console, then they can port it over." You knew right then and there that PS3 owners were gonna get shafted on OB.

Orange Box is an example of the dedication and attitude you DONT want to have when making a multiplatform game. For every OB type example, there are more examples of ports done right. Oblivion runs well on both consoles, CoD4 as well, there are more examples Im sure.

Almost every example of a PS3 port being delayed, or not running as well on the system, can be attributed to the developer not dedicating the time, money, personel, and other resources needed to the project. Halfassed ports are not an indication of a consoles inferiority.

Now wether or not its cost effective for a developer/publisher to devote the necessary resources to doing a PS3 port right is another argument entirely.

[Mechafenris]

I dunno.. I enjoyed Conan for the most part... it's not perfect, but it's got some fun play to it... if a bit repetitive (although, I can never seem to tire of lopping peoples' arms off though...)

I've not tried Bladestorm, but I'll rent it I'm sure (I played the demo... and it had potential.. YMMV).. when Conan hits $30 or less I'll snag it for a nice distraction.

Whether or not the game itself runs better (I'm thinking Conan here) is highly subjective, but I found the PS3 to be a bit more fluid with the game than I did the 360 (both demos, I mean.) Not noticeably so, but there were occasions where the action would stutter a bit on the 360, but didn't do so on the PS3. *shrug* like zewone said though. it's a couple of budget titles to be sure. :)

I'm sure there are cases on the PS3 Conan (had I played it longer) that stuttered.... I just didn't encounter them in the same place as the 360's were. (Not that it affected gameplay all that much, anyway..)

[Ike_21]

my pr: was buying a new game system and at the time the ps3 cost 600!!!! I got a wii instead and can actually afford the system and games.

[Msut77]

My Ps2 crapped out on me and they wanted more than I paid for the system to repair it. My PSP had multiple dead pixels and they basically told me to go die in a fire because I wanted to swap it for a good one.

Microsoft in comparison has treated me like royalty.

[DarkNessBear]

DMC4 and Burnout Paradise are both better on the PS3.

[zewone]

Ah two games that haven't been released. Yes.

[whoknows]

Ah two games that haven't been released. Yes.
It's pretty much the same thing as saying that Orange Box is better on the 360. People that have actually played it say so.

[triplehelix]

However, regarding their effect on prices, you gotta ask yourself how much more would Microsoft and Nintendo be able to charge for their consoles if they didn't have to compete with Sony. That competition drives prices down is a fact.

The early statement of sony keeping the competive prices low has to be the worst, most biased statement I've ever heard in my life. That statement really lives up to his username.

If that is to be said about anyone it would be nintendo. Nintendo games are the only games to be at a "competitive" price. if nintendo didn't charge $50 for its new releases, I think we'd see $120 ps3 games (with no periferals mind you about to mention the existing guitar hero and time crisis $100+ games).

Sony has been very arrogant in just about everything to do with the ps3. developing ps3 games has proved to be difficult for many developers and sony's original thoughts on the issue were "well, they'll adapt to us, they need us" (not a direct quote mind you).

I don't "hate" sony. although I will never be sold on a product mearly because it is sony. I don't own a 360 or a ps3. I have a PC which usually receives all the top titles for those systems anyway (and I like my mouse and keyboard) and have a wii and ds for different types of games that are fun. I've considereed buying a 360, but haven't even considered a ps3. sony really hasn't showed me anything special, I'm not excited about blue-ray, and thats really the only thing I've seen offered for the extra cash I'd have to invest in the ps3.

I just recently bought a ps2... not because sony made it, but because its a good system that has good games. I should have picked one up earlier but being cheap and having an xbox I passed on the ps2 exclusives for a while. sony can earn my shelfspace, but it hasn't shown me anything that I need for the cash and shelfspace of the ps3 (ps2 slimline earned it, and maybe if the ps3 wasn't bigger than my laptop, ps2, and wii combined)

I've mentioned of a lot of rambled points and don't feel like compiling them all. But I'm no "casual" gamer to say the least. I play a lot of games and just don't see any value in the modern sony. Again, I don't "hate" sony, I just don't want to adjust my living room, budget, and life to enjoy a gaming system when I'm not sold on it improving my enjoyment without sacrifice. (and not to mention there is only a handful of games out that I'd actually spend money on)

My systems include:
Ps2, Xbox(orig), Wii, ds lite, gba, n64, and PC.

[FriskyTanuki]

News stories picked up on early builds of the Orange Box for the PS3 having nigh unplayable framerate issues with HL2.. and I think some of the other ones..?: http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/action/halflife2episode2/news.html?sid=6183470

Also, Valve outsourced the development of the PS3 version, because they got sick of trying to get it to run well on the PS3. Valve doesn't give two shits about the quality of the PS3 version. EA is finishing it up:
http://www.joystiq.com/2007/11/25/ps3-version-of-orange-box-might-be-downright-unplayable/

As the PC and Xbox 360 versions have no framerate issues, one COULD say it is superior to the PS3 version.
http://www.1up.com/do/blogEntry?bId=8520153&publicUserId=5380373

This is probably what myke wanted to see:
EA seemed genuinely confused about the most severe framerate issues we brought up, so when they offered to drive retail copies of the game that had just arrived in their offices over to us, we were happy to give them a look to see if somehow the wires had gotten crossed at EA and the "review code" was not adequately representative of the final game. This hardly ever happens, but we were happy to check out the retail code in order to make sure we weren't misleading anyone with what we wrote.

Over the following day, we split up duties and had David Ellis play through most of Half-Life 2, Ryan O'Donnell play through most of Episode One, and me on Episode Two. It took a ton of time and basically wiped out our work day, and I hope that shows how seriously we take this kind of thing. What we found was that the worst of the problems we talked about in Half-Life 2 were gone. Each of the Half-Life games still showed consistent minor framerate issues, on par with what we saw in the review code (with Episode Two having the biggest problems), but the "unplayable" sequences were gone.

Is it annoying that the game isn't a perfect port, especially considering it's already shipping after the PC and 360 versions? Definitely. The worst of the three versions? Yes. But "downright unplayable?" No. The big question of why EA didn't delay this version further until it was equal in quality to the 360 game remains, but it's certainly close and not a bad game.

So who's at fault here for all the attention the negativity in our preview got? Partially EA, for sending out review code that was slightly different from retail code. Partially message boards and blogs, for not understanding what "at worst" means. And partially us, for not providing enough context in our preview. In the end, just know that the PS3 ports of Half-Life 2, Episode One, and Episode Two don't seem to be ideal, but still look to be better than most games out there.
The game was pretty much doomed when it was announced that Valve outsourced the game to EA. It seemed to show that they didn't care enoough about it, maybe due to Newell's opinion's on the PS3.

[Thomas96]

why even bother bringing a game to PS3 if you aren't going to make sure that its a quality product, w/o framerate issues.

[zewone]

why even bother bringing a game to PS3 if you aren't going to make sure that its a quality product, w/o framerate issues.
Because they can make money, by spending very little to port it and selling the game to uninformed consumers.

Think a little.

[guyver2077]

DMC4 and Burnout Paradise are both better on the PS3.

wtf

[Kapwanil]

My Ps2 crapped out on me and they wanted more than I paid for the system to repair it. My PSP had multiple dead pixels and they basically told me to go die in a fire because I wanted to swap it for a good one.

Microsoft in comparison has treated me like royalty.

That's the main reason I still have yet to pick up a PSP (although I may soon enough) or a PS3. While the latter is a solid console so far construction-wise, my experiences with the PS1 and PS2 have soured me on buying any hardware from Sony within the first two years.

When I had to call and talk to 6 different CSRs on several different days at different times to get Sony to repair my PS1, that was an issue. The fact that all of them said that I would have to pay $150 and shipping ~both ways~ for a possible repair even though the system was still well within their waranty was an absolute joke. The PS2 was a similar situation, with them wanting $180 while still well within waranty, but we eventually got through to a CSR who had some synapses still firing up there.

I do enjoy Sony's products and whatnot but, honestly, I'm not an early adopter in their camp any longer. While I have had the same issues with the 360 just a few months ago, the repair went smoothly and getting it authorized by a CSR took relatively no time at all.

I'll get a PS3 eventually but its large size and previous physical problems within the brand name have made me shy away. I don't have time to talk to CSRs who juggle my call like a circus performer while trying to find someone who comprehends that "active waranty + broken system = repair". ;)

[Puffa469]

DMC4 and Burnout Paradise are both better on the PS3.

Yeah but MGS4 and FF XIII both run smoother on the 360. The framrate hiccups from the PS3 versions are gone, plus theres the extra content.

[Furashu]

Yeah but MGS4 and FF XIII both run smoother on the 360. The framrate hiccups from the PS3 versions are gone, plus theres the extra content.

lies the 75 cartridge MGs4 snes versions have no loading time! they also display in 2160p.

[BattleChicken]

DMC4 and Burnout Paradise are both better on the PS3.If you could provide some links or other supporting information to backup your assertion, that would be great.

At the very least try and explain *why* the games are better; it will elevate your comment to 'useful'.

The Orange Box thing, based on the near-retail preview code, was an understandable conclusion. In the correction that was posted by FriskyTanuki, the piece still concluded that it wasn't AS good for the PS3 (BUT they still said the game was good), as there were parts where lag or degraded framerates exist compared to the other versions -- A conclusion that is much better than 'this game is unplayable'. However, the updated article only changed the degree by which the PS3 version is inferior, (according to the reviewers), not the conclusion that it is.

But yeah, please support your argument with an article, or facts.. hell, even a second hand anecdote would be fantastic.

[rodeojones903]

If you could provide some links or other supporting information to backup your assertion, that would be great.

At the very least try and explain *why* the games are better; it will elevate your comment to 'useful'.

The Orange Box thing, based on the near-retail preview code, was an understandable conclusion. In the correction that was posted, the piece still concluded that it wasn't as good for the PS3, as there were parts where lag or degraded framerates exist -- which is much better than 'this game is unplayable' -- it changed the degree of the inferiority, but not the end conclusion.

But yeah, please support your argument with an article, or facts.. hell, even a second hand anecdote would be fantastic.


In the latest 1up show they discuss why DMC4 is better on the PS3. Better framerate, no screen tearing, and better controls on the PS3 version.

[Dr Mario Kart]

I would definitely expect DMC4 to be better on PS3. While multiplatform generally hurts games overall, usually one platform is favored over another, and this game started with the PS3 in mind, or so they say.

[Corvin]

I would definitely expect DMC4 to be better on PS3. While multiplatform generally hurts games overall, usually one platform is favored over another, and this game started with the PS3 in mind, or so they say.

Definitely, but we are also talking about Fanboy Bettenhausen. You have to take any Sony related review/preview by him with a grain of salt, and usually subtract a point or two to put it in line with other reviewers. Every Playstation 3 game is the greatest game ever compared to anything on the 360 and Wii.


The Orange Box thing, based on the near-retail preview code, was an understandable conclusion. In the correction that was posted by FriskyTanuki, the piece still concluded that it wasn't AS good for the PS3 (BUT they still said the game was good), as there were parts where lag or degraded framerates exist compared to the other versions -- A conclusion that is much better than 'this game is unplayable'. However, the updated article only changed the degree by which the PS3 version is inferior, (according to the reviewers), not the conclusion that it is.



...and this brings us back to the arrogance argument. Even though the game is only slightly worse than the 360 version (if noticeable at all by most gamers), it will still get slack because of one reason. Bonehead executives. Everyone forgets that the PS3 is 10x more powerful than the 360!* So every game that isn't better will get flack for it because the PS3 is the end all - be all system of all time. A system that you will want to work two jobs for!*

You can build the hype machine all you want, but when you fail to live up to it gamers will call you on it. That, and the internet never forgets.

*according to Sony executives.

[mxpowar]

You can build the hype machine all you want, but when you fail to live up to it gamers will call you on it. That, and the internet never forgets.

I basically agree with your post except that people do forget like all the goodwill Sony generated with the PS1 and PS2, game-wise. They also forget that both Microsoft and Nintendo left their last generation console owners twisting in the wind by dropping support for their consoles and pushing new ones while the PS2 still lives on. Basically, the rule is (or should be), what have you done for me lately? Sony just needs to get some high-quality software like it had in the past and everyone will forget that it was cool to hate on Sony.

[jer7583]

the PS3 version is without a doubt inferior
the PS3 version is without a doubt inferior
the PS3 version is without a doubt inferior

without a doubt inferior

I just love being right.

[mykevermin]

Eh, it's circumstantial that you're right, since the review came out after you made the claim.

I like making decisions about something, and then fishing for evidence after the fact to support my claims. :roll:

[jer7583]

Plenty of impressions were available before IGN's review went up.

[Blackout]

I knew the PS3 version was going to suck when it gets delayed for ages.

[mykevermin]

Plenty of impressions were available before IGN's review went up.

And allow me to say, again, that any pre-gold master impressions are only that: impressions. You're not wrong, but being right is coincidental, seeing as how you made up your mind before the jury was out.

[BattleChicken]

And allow me to say, again, that any pre-gold master impressions are only that: impressions. You're not wrong, but being right is coincidental, seeing as how you made up your mind before the jury was out.

First off, I don't agree with Jer's tone at ALL. It tries to make people 'winners' or 'losers' based off of some reviewer's opinions. Being correct in that kind of circumstance is just pointless. The review spoke for itself, no need to rub it in like a douche.

But, to be fair, there certainly is a strong correlation between the quality of a late preview build, (like the kind they sent IGN), and the final retail code. More often than not, crappy preview = crappy game, great preview = great game.

In this case, the final product was very much improved -- thats what the crunch time is for, but it is NOT foolish to think 'bad preview build, bad game' because more often than not, that is the case with the final product. But, as a whole, it is better to wait for the final review for final impressions.

[Snake2715]

I basically agree with your post except that people do forget like all the goodwill Sony generated with the PS1 and PS2, game-wise. They also forget that both Microsoft and Nintendo left their last generation console owners twisting in the wind by dropping support for their consoles and pushing new ones while the PS2 still lives on. Basically, the rule is (or should be), what have you done for me lately? Sony just needs to get some high-quality software like it had in the past and everyone will forget that it was cool to hate on Sony.

The PS2 lives on not by choice, they would probably prefer the PS3 was adopted. Secondly how much of the PS2 lives on due to the Wii, think about that?

I am in the market and may sway towards a PS3 this time around for the LBu player, giving it just a bit more until I decide however. I have already had and sold the 360 once.

[mxpowar]

The PS2 lives on not by choice, they would probably prefer the PS3 was adopted. Secondly how much of the PS2 lives on due to the Wii, think about that?

I am in the market and may sway towards a PS3 this time around for the LBu player, giving it just a bit more until I decide however. I have already had and sold the 360 once.
I'm not following the connection you made between the PS2 and the Wii. What do they have to do with each other? I think people buy a PS2 or a Wii for very different reasons.

[Snake2715]

I'm not following the connection you made between the PS2 and the Wii. What do they have to do with each other? I think people buy a PS2 or a Wii for very different reasons.

The development of games for the Wii are also being developed for the PS2, therefore the Wii si keeping the PS2 alive somewhat.

[mxpowar]

The development of games for the Wii are also being developed for the PS2, therefore the Wii si keeping the PS2 alive somewhat.
I think you are only talking about a few cases. The PS2 is standing on its own because of a high install base, not because of the Wii. And I disagree that Sony would rather have the PS3 succeed than the PS2. I think they would rather that they both succeed. In fact, the profits from the PS2 are what are keeping PS3 production alive. They certainly aren't making any money from the PS3.

[mykevermin]

First off, I don't agree with Jer's tone at ALL. It tries to make people 'winners' or 'losers' based off of some reviewer's opinions. Being correct in that kind of circumstance is just pointless. The review spoke for itself, no need to rub it in like a douche.

Eh, I like to gloat when I'm right, so I can't say much. I do take issue with people who make decisions (PS3 is crap) and then cheerlead themselves when they find supportive evidence of their belief well after they've established their decision. It's boring and incorrect, not to mention circumstantial.

As others have pointed out to whoknows, who the hell does know (haha) if Devil May Cry 4 is better on PS3? It could be, it may not be - if Capcom's habits are any indication, they'll be identical. But if he is right, and the PS3 version is better, he'll have been right by accident, wouldn't he be? That's what bothers me about jer's gloating. It's like the Great Karnac telling us all how right he was all along.

But, to be fair, there certainly is a strong correlation between the quality of a late preview build, (like the kind they sent IGN), and the final retail code. More often than not, crappy preview = crappy game, great preview = great game.

In this case, the final product was very much improved -- thats what the crunch time is for, but it is NOT foolish to think 'bad preview build, bad game' because more often than not, that is the case with the final product. But, as a whole, it is better to wait for the final review for final impressions.

There are exceptions to that, but they are just that - exceptions.

[Thomas96]

I just love being right.


is that last quote from your girlfriend...

[Strell]

Inspired by Battlechicken's sig, I know what Sony can do to make themselves right with the gaming world, and that would be to make Starcraft.

They could hype it up and release it next month, and act like there's never been anything like it before.

It's just crazy enough to work.

[BattleChicken]

Inspired by Battlechicken's sig, I know what Sony can do to make themselves right with the gaming world, and that would be to make Starcraft.

They could hype it up and release it next month, and act like there's never been anything like it before.

It's just crazy enough to work.

Great Scott!!

It WOULD work!

[The Crotch]

I'm in for five!

EDIT: And come to think of it, the PS3 is just like the Protoss - very powerful, but there are hardly any of them out there, amiriteguyslulz!

And allow me to say, again, that any pre-gold master impressions are only that: impressions. You're not wrong, but being right is coincidental, seeing as how you made up your mind before the jury was out.Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you say you weren't going to buy a game a little while ago because the demo wasn't hard enough?

[mykevermin]

That was probably Uncharted, which I didn't buy at release, but did buy after people began gushing over it. ;)

I was curious if anyone knew how many XBL Gold subscribers there are? I'm curious because I have my doubts about the 360 having this raging throng of online gamers compared to the PS3 having a paltry smattering of online gamers (based on what people claim, anyway).

[zewone]

That was probably Uncharted, which I didn't buy at release, but did buy after people began gushing over it. ;)

I was curious if anyone knew how many XBL Gold subscribers there are? I'm curious because I have my doubts about the 360 having this raging throng of online gamers compared to the PS3 having a paltry smattering of online gamers (based on what people claim, anyway).
You're kidding, right?

There's not even close to as many That Triples sold as the 360.

Okay, but you say, "PSN is free". For every "PSN is free" guy there is a "Live is worth the money" guy.

I'm guessing there are more "Live is worth the money" guys because trying to find online matches on PSN is like passing through a ghost town.

[FriskyTanuki]

That was probably Uncharted, which I didn't buy at release, but did buy after people began gushing over it. ;)

I was curious if anyone knew how many XBL Gold subscribers there are? I'm curious because I have my doubts about the 360 having this raging throng of online gamers compared to the PS3 having a paltry smattering of online gamers (based on what people claim, anyway).
It was Ratchet, not Uncharted.

[Blackout]

You're kidding, right?

There's not even close to as many That Triples sold as the 360.

Okay, but you say, "PSN is free". For every "PSN is free" guy there is a "Live is worth the money" guy.

I'm guessing there are more "Live is worth the money" guys because trying to find online matches on PSN is like passing through a ghost town.

For what games? I'm still playing Resistance and Motorstorm and those games are over a year old. It is hardly a ghost town. I'm sure Warhawk has a lot of people playing it. Resistance is always packed with people. Not every game has only you and some guy from Fargo playing.

[zewone]

Tekken 5: DR.

I just got it this weekend.

There was one guy online..

Who I couldn't even connect to...

[FriskyTanuki]

Tekken 5: DR.

I just got it this weekend.

There was one guy online..

Who I couldn't even connect to...
Didn't you gameshare it with a few other people? Where are they at?

[zewone]

Playing COD4 on the 360.

[mykevermin]

You're kidding, right?

There's not even close to as many That Triples sold as the 360.

Okay, but you say, "PSN is free". For every "PSN is free" guy there is a "Live is worth the money" guy.

I'm guessing there are more "Live is worth the money" guys because trying to find online matches on PSN is like passing through a ghost town.

Not necessarily. My point is based upon what percentage of 360's are used for online gaming? It's limited by the number of Gold members. OTOH, every single PS3 is capable of online play by any user, anytime they want to. Just go to the online multiplayer section of a game.

I imagine that Tekken is a ghost town because (this is guesswork) it hasn't sold too well. I own it, but rarely play it. Nevertheless, anecdote schmanecdote. I have found only one person playing UMK3 online (and homeboy took me to school like three fuckin' nights in a row last week) - but I'd be a damn fool to argue that nobody's playing their 360s online based on just that, no?

You say "every 360 can go online," and I say "not everyone is a Gold member." Only a portion of 360's are thus capable of online multiplayer, whereas, as I've said, every PS3 can whenever the user wants to.

Warhawk has a robust online community, as does Resistance, CoD4, Motorstorm, and Guitar Hero III. I'll find out what Rock Band's online community is like in the next day or so.

You can argue against it, but neither you nor I have data to verify it in either direction, and it's misleading to think that you could.

Either way, whether there are 1,000 people playing Online Game X online at a moment or 10,000...when you're playing 1 on 1, or in a 30-40 person deathmatch, the difference you don't see behind the scenes is irrelevant, right? Why should I care about the 960 or 9,960 people I'm not playing against when I can consistently find games to play online?

[mykevermin]

It was Ratchet, not Uncharted.

Indeed. Still don't own that one. It'll be GH by the time I genuinely develop any urge to play it, if at all.

[zewone]

Okay, every That Triple is capable of playing online.

But, if the person bought a That Triple over a 360, I'm going to assume they are only a casual online gamer.

So, should they really count since you're likely to never run into them?

If the person is what some would consider a "hardcore" online player (like yours truly) and owns both a 360 and That Triple, they'll be playing online games on their 360 over their That Triple.

[Strell]

Why should I care about the 960 or 9,960 people I'm not playing against when I can consistently find games to play online?

Hmmm.

I imagine the number playing a game is relevant only in terms of longevity.

I played a game online for a good ten years or so with the same (roughly) group of 200 people or so, and of that 200, less than a 100 were active, and even then it was usually the same 50-60. But it was still always fun, and I actually need to pick it back up.

I guess so long as you can find a game as long as you want - i.e., you still want to play X 5 years from now and can versus it having been a flavor-of-the-week affair - then number probably doesn't need to be factored in.

Just sayin'.

[FriskyTanuki]

Playing COD4 on the 360.
Why buy it if you knew they weren't going to play it? For wasting your money, you should fight them for it back.

[zewone]

I didn't pay for shit.

I WANT to play it, but there is no one to play with.

[mykevermin]

Hmmm.

I imagine the number playing a game is relevant only in terms of longevity.

I played a game online for a good ten years or so with the same (roughly) group of 200 people or so, and of that 200, less than a 100 were active, and even then it was usually the same 50-60. But it was still always fun, and I actually need to pick it back up.

I guess so long as you can find a game as long as you want - i.e., you still want to play X 5 years from now and can versus it having been a flavor-of-the-week affair - then number probably doesn't need to be factored in.

Just sayin'.

I think there's an element of truth to that. I also am gonna guess yer talkin' bout Starcraft, no?

But there are differences innate both in genre (sports having the shortest shelf life, I suppose), and also in networking. My schedule and personality are far too erratic to schedule gaming time ("hey, man! "Warhawk" this Thursday from 9-11!" won't work for me - I'll end up at the bar by accident, or working on a paper or something), but the network aspect is far more critical in your case than the number playing (to an extent).

I'm sure the OTT CoD4 crowd couldn't give a fuck if only 50 people ever played CoD4 online, as they play in the same group for the most part. It's not up to the online community to sustain their habits, as they've established a routine outside of the typical "online gaming is short attention span theater, so you better buy this shit at launch and play the fuck out of it for 6 months if you want to play online at all" pattern.

What you're describing is an, err...virtual form of moving "off the grid." What you describe appears to be a self-sustaining online community. In my longwindedness, I could have easily said "you have a stable clan that doesn't really need an online community," I suppose.

zew, I'm not touchin' that last post of yours with a ten foot pole on account of the conjecture involved there.

But, if the person bought a That Triple over a 360, I'm going to assume they are only a casual online gamer.

Thar she is.

[Strell]

Actually, it was for an overhead 2D game called Subspace.

Virgin Interactive Entertainment (VIE) made it. It stayed in beta for a good 2-3 years. I probably came in about the 1.5 year mark.

It did go to retail, but it flopped, and VIE actually closed up. However, we as the gamers took control at that point, setting up our own servers to play on. Later, some of the more intrepid members who were programmers actually reverse engineered the client itself, renaming it to "Continuum."

I think there are still games going on during the weekends, which is about all the time anyone can really spare for it.

Excellent, excellent game. A real shame it didn't stay more popular than it was. I blame the somewhat complex control system, which took some getting used to, and I imagine not many had the patience. Also, it functioned with a stronger physics engine than most other games, so you had to take all of that into account while playing, which resulted in a lot of frustrated newbs.

I keep hoping one day that crew is going to get their ish running on XBL or PSN or something, because it is perfectly suited for any of those platforms.

[zewone]

I'm sure the OTT CoD4 crowd couldn't give a fuck if only 50 people ever played CoD4 online.

zew, I'm not touchin' that last post of yours with a ten foot pole on account of the conjecture involved there.



Thar she is.
Wrong.

If only 50 people played online, then we would be playing against the same people every time. What's the fun in that?

And you lied. You touched it.

[FriskyTanuki]

I didn't pay for shit.

I WANT to play it, but there is no one to play with.
Okay, then I guess you're lucky that you're not out any money because of it. You could make a thread to round some people up if you're desparate for people to play.

[mykevermin]

Actually, it was for an overhead 2D game called Subspace.

Virgin Interactive Entertainment (VIE) made it. It stayed in beta for a good 2-3 years. I probably came in about the 1.5 year mark.

It did go to retail, but it flopped, and VIE actually closed up. However, we as the gamers took control at that point, setting up our own servers to play on. Later, some of the more intrepid members who were programmers actually reverse engineered the client itself, renaming it to "Continuum."

I think there are still games going on during the weekends, which is about all the time anyone can really spare for it.

Excellent, excellent game. A real shame it didn't stay more popular than it was. I blame the somewhat complex control system, which took some getting used to, and I imagine not many had the patience. Also, it functioned with a stronger physics engine than most other games, so you had to take all of that into account while playing, which resulted in a lot of frustrated newbs.

I keep hoping one day that crew is going to get their ish running on XBL or PSN or something, because it is perfectly suited for any of those platforms.

So then it was necessity over circumstance, then?

Wrong.

If only 50 people played online, then we would be playing against the same people every time. What's the fun in that?

50 was an arbitrary number. As I said earlier, once you hit a threshold of people playing online at which you're unlikely to play against the majority of them no matter how much time you invest into the game, it's moot, isn't it?

What I'd like to see is if there are disparities b/w multiplayer games where the 360 game is flourishing and the PS3 version a ghost town. That would account for something in the absence of genuine data.

And you lied. You touched it.

I was raised Catholic. I can't help it.

[Mechafenris]

I remember subspace! Man, that was a long time ago... it did take getting used to, for sure... as at the time it came out, it really didn't have the 'standard' physics people were used to... bouncing off everything was kinda funny... I'd love to see it on a console... I bet it'd be a great little game.

As for online... I can see the draw for a large community, but I can see a better option for a smaller, more dedicated community. The "everyone's got it and is online" sort of game is more often than not a game that burns out quicker... simply because the SN ratio is so high... I prefer playing (very, very rarely) with people I already know... and that is why I'm still a single-player campaign sort of guy... like most people, my schedule isn't as flexible as it used to be (when I played Diablo and Warcraft all the time...) and I've developed a low tolerance for morons in games as I've become an older fart.... ;)

[Strell]

I guess you could say that to an extent, barring the "games are not a life requirement" clause.

Mostly just saying that in that instance, those who really liked the game and were dedicated kept it going, regardless that the number of us was essentially negligable.

[Puffa469]

Either way, whether there are 1,000 people playing Online Game X online at a moment or 10,000...when you're playing 1 on 1, or in a 30-40 person deathmatch, the difference you don't see behind the scenes is irrelevant, right? Why should I care about the 960 or 9,960 people I'm not playing against when I can consistently find games to play online?

Allow me to elaborate on this last point.

If your interested in playing a game online, you want as many people playing as possible so you can connect to some people near you. More people playing means more people playing in your neighborhood, which means a smoother play experience.

I play CoD online every day. Ive begun to notice that I need a 'critical mass' of players in order to get a good game. CoD4 tells you how many people are playing a certain game type. I find the magic number for me is at least 5000. That many or above, and Im likely to get four full bars on my connection (god do I wish they expressed my ping as a ms number like a normal PC game). Less than 5000 and I could be in for a rough ride. Yesterday I was in a simply beautiful server, soo smooth. Turns out nearly everyone in the game was in New Jersey, as I am.

If I play late night/ early morning, the people on the east coast US go to sleep, and I start playing with westcoasters. After they go to bed I start winding up in servers in England, France, Spain, and Italy. And my connections to those games arent very good. I have to change my play style to be more sneaky, and shoot people in the back, hide in corners, etc.

I dont know the stats, but Im willing to bet that theres a helluva lot more people playing CoD on the 360 versus the PS3. And If Im interested in getting as lagfree an online experience as possible, Im gonna want the most popular version of the game. So the amount of people playing the same game as you definitely matters.

Of course, this really only matters for Shooters and fighters and precision stuff like that. If you want to play Uno or Culdecept online, none of the above matters.

[Puffa469]

Kotaku's got a vid up of a side by side & split screen comparison of 360 and PS3 Orange Box.

http://kotaku.com/gaming/clips/ps3-v-360-the-orange-box-round-332798.php

Theres no doubt that the 360 version runs smoother. Wether or not the PS3 version runs well enough is entirely to you.

[benjamouth]

Kotaku's got a vid up of a side by side & split screen comparison of 360 and PS3 Orange Box.

http://kotaku.com/gaming/clips/ps3-v-360-the-orange-box-round-332798.php

Theres no doubt that the 360 version runs smoother. Wether or not the PS3 version runs well enough is entirely to you.

It looks like they are quicksaving on the PS3 version at the boat sequence on that vid, which is the only place I noticed any slowdown, that might be why.

Apart from that the two versions look identical IMO.

[Snake2715]

Apart from that the two versions look identical IMO.

I thought the PS3 version looked slightly better to be honest, it is choppier no doubt however.

[seanr1221]

Who would hate a company? Honestly, if you truly hate a company, you need to spend your time doing better things.

See my sig, everyone play everything and be happy!

TRAAA LAL ALAL ALALAAAAA

[BattleChicken]

EDIT: And come to think of it, the PS3 is just like the Protoss - very powerful, but there are hardly any of them out there, amiriteguyslulz!


The Protoss are weaksause.

WEAKSAUCE!

[Puffa469]

Who would hate a company? Honestly, if you truly hate a company, you need to spend your time doing better things.

See my sig, everyone play everything and be happy!

TRAAA LAL ALAL ALALAAAAA

I hate plenty of corporations, just not the ones that make videogames and videogame consoles.

If you wanna hate a corporation, theres plenty of worthy ones currently detroying the environment, cheating people out of their pensions/savings or promoting slave/child labor practices.

[Corvin]

Who would hate a company?

Well, hate is a strong word. Annoyed or peeved would be better fitting, IMO.

[jer7583]

I don't hate any companies, but the PS3 is an overpriced peice of junk and Sony has done little yet to make me consider it this generation. Their fault, not mine. I don't need a 360 lite that costs more, thanks.

[jaykrue]

I hate plenty of corporations, just not the ones that make videogames and videogame consoles.

If you wanna hate a corporation, theres plenty of worthy ones currently detroying the environment, cheating people out of their pensions/savings or promoting slave/child labor practices.

Don't forgot corporations that enable the military industrial complex or seesaw on important ethical issues such as privacy.

[The Crotch]

The Protoss are weaksause.

WEAKSAUCE!Over this insult, blood will be spilt. And since Protoss don't actuallyhave blood, I believe everyone here knows just who will be doing the bleeding.

[BattleChicken]

Over this insult, blood will be spilt. And since Protoss don't actuallyhave blood, I believe everyone here knows just who will be doing the bleeding.

No other race can be decimated by the power that is EMP + nuke.

Nothing bleeds when it gets nuked.. you evaporate way too fast for that.

[DarkNessBear]

Isn't it embarassing for Valve/EA to release a game on the PS3 with framerate issues? Especially a game that came out 3-4 years ago?

[Dr Mario Kart]

Valve didnt handle the porting, because they've been very public about not caring about the platform. So it might be an embarassment for the PS3

[cdrober]

Just one comment:

The only way to vote is with $$, no matter what anyone says, the company that sells the most units, games, etc. and makes the most $$$, THAT is the system that most understands US Consumers and what they want. (Can't say US Gamers....that is much more complicated and the definition of 'gamer' is hard to agree upon)

[mykevermin]

Valve didnt handle the porting, because they've been very public about not caring about the platform. So it might be an embarassment for the PS3

I don't get your logic. "Fuck developing for this platform, let these EA monkeys do it" is an embarrassment for the PS3? It's not as if the system's architecture can't handle it, as evidenced by all the other games that run fine and have good framerates. It's lazy developers, finger-pointing, and self-fulfilling prophecies as far as I'm concerned.

And yes, yes, Gabe Newell is the high prince of all things good in the gaming world. Sure. I can't figure out, then, why Bethesda had no issues porting Oblivion (and even made it a micron faster in loading), why Guitar Hero III is identical to its 360 counterpart, why CoD4 is as well, and so on. When there is ample evidence of developers, both respected (CoD4) and portmonkeys (GHIII), making games run just fine on both consoles, that it becomes an inherent flaw in the system itself when a select few titles have damn-near-irrelevant flaws (HL2 being debatable in that regard, but Madden 08 being a bunch of tight-panties prats just fulfilling their own smug satisfaction and predetermined preferences).

IOW, if there are many ports that run just fine, and a handful that are lesser, can you reasonably blame the console?

[freemoney]

Sony charges to much for there products then after they sucker a few people into buying the high priced stuff they lower the price to try and attract more buyers, this applies to all there products not just the ps3/ps2

[Thomas96]

I don't hate any companies, but the PS3 is an overpriced peice of junk and Sony has done little yet to make me consider it this generation. Their fault, not mine. I don't need a 360 lite that costs more, thanks.


ohhhhh, that's cold. How about you stop discussing PS3 issues, because you're not even objective enough to recognize the good things that the PS3 does. But I'm sure that if the PS3 was 200/300 dollars you'd have one. But baby, in this world you can't get something for nothing. All I'm goign to say is that.. if you spend 600 dollars on team xbox 360, you won't have the same package you would w/ the 600 dollar team PS3 package.

[mykevermin]

Sony charges to much for there products then after they sucker a few people into buying the high priced stuff they lower the price to try and attract more buyers, this applies to all there products not just the ps3/ps2

Ooooh, lookie! An economics lesson!

[Thomas96]

I don't get your logic. "Fuck developing for this platform, let these EA monkeys do it" is an embarrassment for the PS3? It's not as if the system's architecture can't handle it, as evidenced by all the other games that run fine and have good framerates. It's lazy developers, finger-pointing, and self-fulfilling prophecies as far as I'm concerned.

And yes, yes, Gabe Newell is the high prince of all things good in the gaming world. Sure. I can't figure out, then, why Bethesda had no issues porting Oblivion (and even made it a micron faster in loading), why Guitar Hero III is identical to its 360 counterpart, why CoD4 is as well, and so on. When there is ample evidence of developers, both respected (CoD4) and portmonkeys (GHIII), making games run just fine on both consoles, that it becomes an inherent flaw in the system itself when a select few titles have damn-near-irrelevant flaws (HL2 being debatable in that regard, but Madden 08 being a bunch of tight-panties prats just fulfilling their own smug satisfaction and predetermined preferences).

IOW, if there are many ports that run just fine, and a handful that are lesser, can you reasonably blame the console?


Is it really cost effective to release a poor version of any game on the PS3?

and who made Gabe Newell prince of anything, I can't give that guy any respect, he can't even program on PS3. I guess he's talented, but I guess Ps3 programming exceeds his limitations.

[Teh Nitwit]

Sony charges to much for there products then after they sucker a few people into buying the high priced stuff they lower the price to try and attract more buyers, this applies to all there products not just the ps3/ps2

Do you enjoy embarassing yourself? This has to be the dumbest thing I have read on this forum.

[BattleChicken]

Is it really cost effective to release a poor version of any game on the PS3?

and who made Gabe Newell prince of anything, I can't give that guy any respect, he can't even program on PS3. I guess he's talented, but I guess Ps3 programming exceeds his limitations.
I believe he simply looked at it as a cost to benefit ratio.

The cost of porting code (that easily worked between the PC -> Xbox 360) exceeded what they would make on the PS3 sales of the game. That, or it was a time cost to benefit ratio. His dev teams would have to focus their efforts on the port rather than some other project. He didn't think it was worth it -- talent had nothing to do with the PS3 Orange Box, money did.

The guy doesn't like the PS3. He doesn't HAVE to develop for it. He thinks it sucks... (for some easily supportable reasons, actually...), and someone with that kind of artistic direction thinking it sucks matters a great deal more than what you or I think, because HIS opinions determine the GAMES they make for the PS3.

Apparently, he'd rather let EA do it... and from several economic angles, that is very smart business.

[zerolens]

Didn't Valve do Half Life 2 for the Xbox but someone else did the PS2 version of Half Life? Valve never touched the PS2 either I believe. Nothing has changed, but some people will have you believe the PS3 is going downhill because Valve doesn't want to work with it. They spent money to have Half Life offered on PS2 and PS3, that shows they believe Playstation consoles can be worth offering games for and that's what ultimately matters.

[Teh Nitwit]

...
The guy doesn't like the PS3. He doesn't HAVE to develop for it. He thinks it sucks... (for some easily supportable reasons, actually...), and someone with that kind of artistic direction thinking it sucks matters a great deal more than what you or I think, because HIS opinions determine the GAMES they make for the PS3.
...


A real artist would want his art to reach as many people as possible. A true artist would not accept anything less than a perfect presentation of his art. This guy sounds like some arrogant fool.

[The Crotch]

No other race can be decimated by the power that is the most prohibitively expensive and risky combination of attacks in the game.Fixed.

[Nephlabobo]

1) Sony's been a blight to gamers for nearly a decade now. They invested what into the gaming industry? You mean how they were paid, eventually, by Nintendo to develop CD technology with Philips for a possible Nintendo-CD expansion which never came about, but with which Sony used to get it's foot in the market place, aka: The Playstation.
You mean how Nintendo bailed on Sony and left them holding the bag.
If it weren't for Nintendo, there wouldn't BE a Playstation.


2) Their business practices are worse: Look at the PS2 vs. Xbox, granted while no large corporation is an angel, at least M$ sold the Xbox at a loss in order to a) benefit gamers by getting the hot systems in their hands, and thus b) allowing gamers to buy, you know, games.
That's a complete crock. They sold it at a loss to try and gain a foothold in the industry. If they could have charged more, they would have.

3) Sony and "quality" are a matter of perspective. While I'll admit the 360 is a faulty design, and the PS3 does seem more stable, and yea verily comes with a Blue-ray player, the titles are just so....Non-Western in nature.
You racist prick.

4) Nintendo took out component, but not until they made it through 60% of the Gamecubes lifespan. HDTV support for that generation consoles just wasn't popular period here in the West: seriously, did you have an HDTV capable of 1080p, oh heck, I'll even go as low as 720p, in 2001/2002? I did, and I got the cables I needed. Waaah.
And this has to do with Sony how?

5) Back to Sony's games vs. Nintendo's games: Nintendo does pump a lot of Japanese/Eastern gaming our way, BUT Nintendo is extremely sensitive to one of it's most important markets- America. America is the Nintendo "Nest egg". America gave rise/popularity to Mario (Designed just for America), Zelda was an American-only game for a good while. Icarus, while Japanese first, has a distinctly Western flair. Sony, by comparison, gives us Monster Hunter, a score of Samuri and anime games with niche/limited appeal, and horrible fake-RPG's (I say fake because most RPG afficionados do not consider the Final Fantasy/Any product from Square Soft-Enix as a real RPG- they're number crunchers/battle sims.

You repeatedly go on and on about Monster Hunter and Samurai games like they're the only games for the system. And since when is a Final Fantasy game....a battle sim?!


The Japanese have a "Fight" Fetish, if you'll notice, the games which are the biggest sellers are about fighting, and games which are shooters are usually less than popular compared to here in America, although I do, on a side note, dearly wish they had released Muzzle Flash for Xbox here in America- that was a good game). Robots, fighting games, anime- it gets old, and is not relevant to my background or interests. In that way Sony is telling me "We don't care about what American gamers want, we only care to sell you our left overs". Whereas what do we get from MS? Sports games and FPS. It gets old and is not relevant to my background or interests. In that way Microsoft is telling me "We don't care about what American gamers want, we only care to sell you our left overs".Their greed exceeds their common sense of our market, and the "Yes-men" who work for Sony North America will keep nodding approval to their Rising Sun masters till it's too late. [/quote]

Rising Sun Masters? You really don't hate Sony because they're "bad" for gaming. You hate Japanese. I suggest you get some counselling to combat your racial hatred.

[Snake2715]

I believe he simply looked at it as a cost to benefit ratio.

The cost of porting code (that easily worked between the PC -> Xbox 360) exceeded what they would make on the PS3 sales of the game. That, or it was a time cost to benefit ratio. His dev teams would have to focus their efforts on the port rather than some other project. He didn't think it was worth it -- talent had nothing to do with the PS3 Orange Box, money did.

The guy doesn't like the PS3. He doesn't HAVE to develop for it. He thinks it sucks... (for some easily supportable reasons, actually...), and someone with that kind of artistic direction thinking it sucks matters a great deal more than what you or I think, because HIS opinions determine the GAMES they make for the PS3.

Apparently, he'd rather let EA do it... and from several economic angles, that is very smart business.


This is the same BS the GC experienced. I am not calling the PS3 the Cube of this generation yet but it was a fully capable machine but got crap for support from 3rd parties.. then they blamed the low sales on the demographic and not their shitty ass port.