Why do so many gamers hate Sony?

T

Teh Nitwit

CAGiversary!
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?
 
[quote name='Teh Nitwit']They provided the competition, which drove quality up and prices down.[/quote]

I'm going to say that a lot of people disagree with this point.
 
[quote name='Teh Nitwit'] They provided the competition, which drove quality up and prices down.[/QUOTE]

:whistle2: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.
 
[quote name='Corvin']:whistle2: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.[/QUOTE]

The PS1 and Saturn were 250 at launch weren't they?
 
[quote name='snowsquirrel']Not sure what 'FUD mirite' means, but I was told that TMK was banned for some random reason.
~S[/QUOTE]


yep it was true...
 
[quote name='Corvin']:whistle2: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.[/quote]

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.
 
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.
 
[quote name='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?[/quote]
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.
 
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
 
[quote name='Teh Nitwit']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.[/quote]

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.
 
[quote name='Thomas96']all of Sony negative problems started when they announced that the PS3 was going to be 600 dollars.[/quote]

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.
 
[quote name='meesterjojo']

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.

[/quote]

Yeah I'm sure Microsoft's intent was to "benefit gamers".
 
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.
 
[quote name='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[/quote]

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,
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).
 
[quote name='Teh Nitwit']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.[/QUOTE]



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.
 
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.
 
[quote name='Blackout542']Yeah I'm sure Microsoft's intent was to "benefit gamers".[/quote]

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.
 
[quote name='Teh Nitwit']
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).[/quote]
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.
 
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]

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
 
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.
 
[quote name='Teh Nitwit']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,
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).[/quote]

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.
 
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)
 
[quote name='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)[/quote]

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.
 
[quote name='meesterjojo']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.[/quote]

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.
 
[quote name='meesterjojo']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.[/quote]

Broad Appeal examples:
wiimq1.gif
wiigirl2.gif
 
[quote name='jennie25']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.

[/QUOTE]

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.

[quote name='Teh Nitwit']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,
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).[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='Blackout542']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.[/quote]

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.
 
[quote name='Corvin']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.[/quote]

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.
 
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)
 
[quote name='meesterjojo']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.[/quote]

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.
 
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.
 
[quote name='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)[/quote]

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.
 
[quote name='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.[/quote]

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

Also he listed Halo 1 and 2 which aren't 360 games.
 
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.
 
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.
 
[quote name='Teh Nitwit']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,
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).[/quote]

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
 
The HD can be upgraded and you don't need a special Sony HD, most laptop HDD's work fine.

Also, yes for games being downloaded, no for movies, just trailers.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']

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.[/quote]

Other than Sony releasing a new PS2 in 2008, and still releasing games for the PS2.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top