Sony is killing it and no one is paying attention

I don't feel sorry for the company...at all. I feel sorry for the people who purchased a game and have to choose between bugs and glitches or potentially having their save file corrupted, all because the affected is supposedly small enough the new patch wouldn't be cost effective.

If someone wants to fix their game, they should be able to fix their game, with minimal obstacles.
 
[quote name='Salamando3000']If someone wants to fix their game, they should program it right in the first fuckin' place. Period.[/QUOTE]
Fixed.;) It should not take 5 patches and a year from launch to get a game that freezes or corrupts saves only some of the time. If these developers can't create a game that isn't a glitchy/broken pos, then they need to find a new line of work. Period.
 
Wait a sec, what is this about automatic updates via PS+? Do you have to sync your save files with the server to activate this? If so, I SHALL REJOICE!!

I love my PS3, even though I don't have much time to play anymore, thus making the updates a fairly hefty inconvenience. If there is ANY way to lower the rate of occurrence, I'm there.

All of that aside, I believe Sony has finally come into their own this generation. When I was considering whether or not to get my first PS3 ~5 months ago, the library and future cost were the biggest factors. Both are the best of the big three, in my opinion of course. Since I live on my own now, I have to budget wisely, and Microsoft's model simply does not line up with what that. PS+ is such a great idea, and it's one that builds interest and loyalty right into the name. It automatically implies "hey, the other guy is charging just to play online with the system you already bought. For the same price, we'll give you the option of having a sweet library of games to play anytime." You simply cannot beat that value.

Beyond the philosophy, Microsoft made some shitty ass hardware early on. While my OG Xbox outlasted my PS2 by a good margin, I went through FOUR 360s before finally giving up. I understand it was a certain period in the manufacturing cycle, and even if I had gotten a PS3 at that time there's a good chance it would have died. But I didn't have a PS3 then, and MS' bullshit was just too much. Combined with the Live money-grubbing, a serious resentment emerged, and it told me never to buy a MS product EVER again.

And I won't.

So there.
 
[quote name='hufferstl']I would call it careful planning and giving the consumer an experience that no-one else could provide.[/QUOTE]

"Careful planning?" Sony was being hired by Nintendo to develop a CD-based add-on to the Super Nintendo. When Nintendo bailed on the deal, Sony decided to take the prototype and develop it into a full console. The only reason they got into the console business in the first place was because of a dick move by Nintendo. I wouldn't call that careful planning.

Also, Sony's early first-party work in video game development is universally reviled. Their earliest development efforts were terrible, and it wasn't until closer to the end of the PS1's console cycle that they started coming into their own as first party developers. Their initial strength was NOT in giving the consumer an experience that they wanted. It was in catering to third-party developers, and giving them the freedom to provide consumers with the experiences that they wanted.

They got into console development by accident, and they succeeded at it because everyone else messed up so badly.
 
[quote name='IAmTheCheapestGamer']Fixed.;) It should not take 5 patches and a year from launch to get a game that freezes or corrupts saves only some of the time. If these developers can't create a game that isn't a glitchy/broken pos, then they need to find a new line of work. Period.[/QUOTE]

"Program it right the first time"...ain't that easier said than done. My rage towards a company that releases a buggy game is directly proportional to the size of the company and the ease with which the bugs could be found. The PS3 version of Skyrim? Oh yeah, they can die in a fire. They have a QA department, they knew those bugs existed, but they pushed the game out anyway. An indie company releasing a patch that negatively affects 1% of users? I'm willing to give them a mulligan.
 
Yeah. I'm willing to give the smaller places a bit of a chance. But I still wonder how people put up with some games that are just loaded to the gills with bugs/glitches.

I could not get done with Dead Island on PS3 fast enough via co-op with a friend of mine. We had major league framerate drops and hard freezes that seemed to take turns locking up our machines.
 
Good to see some PS3 love in this topic. :) Here are my thoughts on why the PS3 is the better choice this generation.

At the beginning of the generation, after having owned a PS1 and several PS2's, I gave a long, hard, honest look at the 360 versus the PS3 before making my decision.

The 360 initially promised to be very friendly to independent developers, a point which in-and-of-itself was nearly enough to convince me to make the leap. It later came to light that the 360's "Live Arcade" platform wasn't anywhere near as great as it sounded -- having to pay $99, being forced into developing the games in C# (while I'm more of a C++ and Java type of guy), and then releasing a game into a market that's very oversaturated, making it hard for buyers to find quality games among the heap of crap (or so seems to be the common opinion; I haven't browsed the market myself, but an interview from the developers of Breath of Death VII and Cthulu Saves the World comes to mind, in which the developers described this phenomenon and showed how their Steam PC release's sales immediately eclipsed their Live Arcade sales, attributing it to the poor organization and oversaturation of the Live Arcade market).

So there went my first major selling point for the 360. I then looked at the games...

To date, there are few 360 exclusives that I'd even buy. The only ones that come to mind are the HD remake of Perfect Dark (played it on a friend's 360), as well as Perfect Dark Zero (haven't played it). There could be a few more that I just haven't seen, but nothing else has stood out to me enough to remember it. I'm not a fan of FPS's, so I guess that throws out the majority of the 360's exclusive appeal. Compared to this, nearly half of the PS3 games I play are exclusives.

As others pointed out, optionally paying $50/year for PS+ and getting access to a handful of games, increasing in number as the subscription length endures, is preferable to being forced to pay somewhere around the same price just to play online at all. Granted, XBox Live has some nice voice chat features for those who never play online without their headsets (and the scarcity of communication in online PS3 games can be seen as a drawback), but PS+ still provides much more value than XBox Live.

Those are the reasons PS3 became, and remains, my console of choice this generation. I don't subscribe to fanboyism (perhaps evidenced by my scathing opinion of the Vita); whichever console offers the best product / best value is the one I'll purchase in any given generation. In my opinion, the 360 doesn't even come close to the value of the PS3.
 
[quote name='Josh1billion']Good to see some PS3 love in this topic. :) Here are my thoughts on why the PS3 is the better choice this generation.

At the beginning of the generation, after having owned a PS1 and several PS2's, I gave a long, hard, honest look at the 360 versus the PS3 before making my decision.[/quote]
I only had two PS2's during the last gaming gen, but I had multiple PS1's lasers go kablooie on me. Albeit that might've been because of my extensive gaming sessions I'd have on there.
The 360 initially promised to be very friendly to independent developers, a point which in-and-of-itself was nearly enough to convince me to make the leap. It later came to light that the 360's "Live Arcade" platform wasn't anywhere near as great as it sounded -- having to pay $99, being forced into developing the games in C# (while I'm more of a C++ and Java type of guy), and then releasing a game into a market that's very oversaturated, making it hard for buyers to find quality games among the heap of crap (or so seems to be the common opinion; I haven't browsed the market myself, but an interview from the developers of Breath of Death VII and Cthulu Saves the World comes to mind, in which the developers described this phenomenon and showed how their Steam PC release's sales immediately eclipsed their Live Arcade sales, attributing it to the poor organization and oversaturation of the Live Arcade market).
Click to expand...
There's also a glut of crap on the Playstation Store too imo. Between all those old ports of 16 bit shit games that were crap back in the day to the shovelware level Minis and the overpriced(at $15 or more) independent titles. So it's not just MS that's got their store loaded up with junk.
As others pointed out, optionally paying $50/year for PS+ and getting access to a handful of games, increasing in number as the subscription length endures, is preferable to being forced to pay somewhere around the same price just to play online at all. Granted, XBox Live has some nice voice chat features for those who never play online without their headsets (and the scarcity of communication in online PS3 games can be seen as a drawback), but PS+ still provides much more value than XBox Live.
Click to expand...
PS Plus is ok if you like downloadable games that you're essentially renting for $4.17 a month. But as it stands the downloads from the store take too long as it is and downloading some of the multi gig games in the PS+ 'instant collection' just isn't worth it for me, since I've owned most of what they've given away for free or it's stuff I would never bother with in the first place.

As for the lack of people using headsets in PS3 games, to me that's a GOOD thing, since virtually any time I've run into someone using a headset on PS3 it sounds like they're trying to eat their headset or they're screaming or blasting their music into it. I'd rather not go deaf from lil brats crying or screaming in the background while 'daddy' tries to play Battlefield.:roll:
 
The problem with iOS updates is they can break your apps, I dunno what it is but I have seen this happen personally, you update an app and then it ceases to function the way it should, or it just crashes to a black screen upon startup. It can often take weeks to get a fix out since the fix has to be approved by Apple, but somehow apple does not know how to stop app makers from breaking certain features of their own apps.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top