Sony is killing it and no one is paying attention

I don't get the hate for console debates. While I have no loyalty to any one company, there are certainly differences between consoles that are worth of discussion. Certainly, I chose the Xbox 360 over the PS3, so there must have been something about the Xbox I preferred over the PS3. Yet to vocalize what those things were would be tantamount to fanboyism? Hogwash, I say.

That being said, there are some PS3 exclusives I'm interested in. I would certainly like to try Uncharted, Heavy Rain, MGS4 and MLB: The Show eventually, but those experiences can be had for a discounted price in the future while I work on my backlog today.
 
[quote name='JasonTerminator']There's also Prey, Lost Odyssey, Blue Dragon, Dead Rising, Ace Combat 6, Crackdown, Infinite Undiscovery, Banjo Kazooie, Chromehounds, Dead or Alive, Tales of Vesperia and Too Human.[/QUOTE]

Condemned, Splosion Man, Geometry Wars, Shadow Complex, RezHD, Pac-Man: CE, Trials HD...
 
I think Sony's problem is their lack of streamlining. Everything about the PS3 is a disorganized mess: the dashboard/XMB is spread out all over, and difficult to navigate. Their games have no single, core login. Many games require the user to sign up for a separate account, and to download additional stuff, (and required installations in some cases), just to play. The chat system is disorganized and underused. Their store is a mess.

These are the areas that the Xbox 360 excels in, and the PS3 fails in. It's like comparing a Blackberry to an iPhone: they both essentially do the same thing and both have the same software titles in most cases, but the iPhone is so much more organized and user-friendly.

If Sony really wants to succeed, they need to make their console more accessible and easier to use. This isn't a call to copy Microsoft, just a call to reorganize and simplify the interface and framework of their console.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']It is. It was (maybe still is) a PS+ freebie recently.[/QUOTE]
pacman still free

7755310034_706cb899e1_z.jpg
 
With each xbox update I moved to playstation a bit more and more. The past week I only booted up my xbox to do that sales and special app. I really hate the updates for xbox and their lack of good deals. Seems with each update my xbox gets slower and slower. I went and bought a new one thinking it was an issue with my console and that didn't fix anything. I'll probably put most my money into sony next gen. I'm tired of microsoft focusing on kinect and entertainment apps and I just want to play games on it. I have netflix, HBOGo and Hulu on my TV along with a few others and the apps boot much faster.
I think the price point for the console is what hurt ps3 the most. Most my friends have 360 and I know they just bought it instead because it was cheaper. Now finally they have been getting ps3 so I don't have to buy the xbox version just to play with my real life friends.

Though other than the console and playstation plus though I really haven't spent much money on games. I probably spent over 2000 on 360 games last year and with playstation I have spent maybe between 200-300. I just been playing all the free plus games and a few games I bought for cheap with the plus discount.
 
[quote name='IAmTheCheapestGamer']Actually I'm pretty sure Pac-Man Championship Edition is on PSN now.[/QUOTE]

Championship DX is, but not the original (and superior) game.
 
[quote name='Corvin']Condemned, Splosion Man, Geometry Wars, Shadow Complex, RezHD, Pac-Man: CE, Trials HD...[/QUOTE]

Oh jeez, now we're reaching into XBLA? :lol: PSN has tons of exclusives on there as well.

I know there are more exclusives than what was mentioned, but there really aren't much more. Especially when you look at how many exclusives Sony has. I'm not trying to trash the 360, I even plan on buying one soon as I want to play through Gears, ME1 & Witcher 2(my wife SWEARS it's one of the best PC games ever)... Just pointing out facts.
 
[quote name='JasonTerminator']There's also Prey, Lost Odyssey, Blue Dragon, Dead Rising, Ace Combat 6, Crackdown, Infinite Undiscovery, Banjo Kazooie, Chromehounds, Dead or Alive, Tales of Vesperia and Too Human.[/QUOTE]

Also wanted to point out a few other things... Dead Rising's sequel is on PS3, no longer an exclusive franchise. Same with DoA & Tales. You're correct on the rest of them, though Banjo's previous games reside on Nintendo consoles.
 
[quote name='preston181']I think Sony's problem is their lack of streamlining. Everything about the PS3 is a disorganized mess: the dashboard/XMB is spread out all over, and difficult to navigate. Their games have no single, core login. Many games require the user to sign up for a separate account, and to download additional stuff, (and required installations in some cases), just to play. The chat system is disorganized and underused. Their store is a mess.

These are the areas that the Xbox 360 excels in, and the PS3 fails in. It's like comparing a Blackberry to an iPhone: they both essentially do the same thing and both have the same software titles in most cases, but the iPhone is so much more organized and user-friendly.

If Sony really wants to succeed, they need to make their console more accessible and easier to use. This isn't a call to copy Microsoft, just a call to reorganize and simplify the interface and framework of their console.[/QUOTE]

I don't find the Xbox more user friendly then the PS3..... at all.

I think it is infinitely easier to find and use media on the PS3, find past and current downloads and run apps without annoying adds everywhere on the Playstation 3 versus the Xbox.

It is also infinitely easier to custom the PS3 (upgrades, backgrounds, etc.).

But when it comes down to it I prefer streaming media on the PS3 because it has current technology (i.e. bluetooth) and I don't have to go to the front of the room and point the media remote at the little sensor like I do with the Xbox (or drain batters by keeping a controller running).
 
[quote name='iamsobroke']xbox had great exclusives, gears, halo, Alan Wake, Mass Effect 1 & 2 until about a year ago, The Witcher 2, Fable, Left 4 Dead, Forza 4 the best racing sim out there, and alot of XBLA downloadable games too ... but ps3 has great exclusives as well[/QUOTE]
You just named off a bunch of PC games. Its not exclusive if you can get it somewhere else..
 
Sony is much better as a reactive company. The PS3 has been playing catch-up for a long time now and they are getting much better, but are late to the "war". The Vita confirms how bad the company vision is for their products.

For me, the PS3 is a fine machine. I never touched mine until PS+ started becoming a pretty good service with what they allow you to play. With that said, I prefer Xbox Live by far for my online games. The service is much better in my opinion for most online multiplayer offerings.

The bottom line is that both systems offer something unique. I personally like the 360 better for what I do and is people like the PS3 better.....thats fine. Why does it have to always be a debate on who's Dick is bigger?

Sony has nobody to blame for themselves and Microsoft is doing great at being not just a gaming machine, which Sony needs to keep up with as well.
 
[quote name='lowgear26']Sony is much better as a reactive company. The PS3 has been playing catch-up for a long time now and they are getting much better, but are late to the "war". The Vita confirms how bad the company vision is for their products.

For me, the PS3 is a fine machine. I never touched mine until PS+ started becoming a pretty good service with what they allow you to play. With that said, I prefer Xbox Live by far for my online games. The service is much better in my opinion for most online multiplayer offerings.

The bottom line is that both systems offer something unique. I personally like the 360 better for what I do and is people like the PS3 better.....thats fine. Why does it have to always be a debate on who's Dick is bigger?

Sony has nobody to blame for themselves and Microsoft is doing great at being not just a gaming machine, which Sony needs to keep up with as well.[/QUOTE]

Here, here.

I play the Xbox 360 most of the time, but Sony does have some exclusives that I'll be picking up, like The Last of Us and Beyond. The Uncharted games are excellent as well.
 
As long as Sony keeps the ability to play online for free as a feature, I will keep buying their systems. I hardly ever play online but like having the ability to do it from time to time w/o having to pay for it.

Paying the same price for a game on Xbox, and then having to pay a fee to play it online, plus another fee for a online pass if purchased used, just rubs me the wrong way.
 
[quote name='IAmTheCheapestGamer']Technically Warhawk was originally a PS1 title.:razz: As for the hatred of MS you seem to have, why can't we just all agree that each console has it's own strong and weak points and leave it at that?:roll:[/QUOTE]

I forgot about that. I remember a few were old, un-noticeable one's on the PSOne so forgive me for forgetting.
fuck no because I'm still bitter about MS dropping Mistwalker, getting rid of the Project Gotham team as well as having Rare now seemingly do nothing but "Kinnect Sports".
So now, looking forward, it seems like what we're left with are shooters and ONE racing game(oh, and franchises, franchises, franchises), that being Forza. Great fucking job MS. Fine I won't forget "Lips" but I don't see anything new from that.
ME no longer counts since they're not console exclusive onwards.
 
They're definitely doing the best job of the three right now, but when your console sucks for the first couple of years and two other competitors are "killing it" at that time, you're going to be playing catch up for the rest of the lifecycle. Sony was pretty arrogant for the first 2/3 years, now they're paying for it.

Microsoft pulled some smart innovations at the beginning of this generation and Nintendo hit on a solid gimmick that carried them for a few years. Now I see Microsoft to be like Sony was 6 years ago - getting arrogant and sloppy, and basically giving away the lead to whoever steps up to take it from them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='The Mana Knight']The PS3 isn't technically last place. In US it might be, but Europe/Japan/overall is a different story.[/QUOTE]

This is a good point. In Japan the 360 essentially doesn't even exist. And in Europe Sony and its gaming products have always had a strong presence. This might be why they didn't seem to bother promoting Vita games at E3, but announced several new Vita titles at Gamescom.

I do heartily agree that Sony has come a long way as a developer of gaming hardware. Their initial foray was rough, and the PS2 only marginally improved on that concept. But their current line-up of hardware is quite satisfying. They've managed to continue the strong third-party support that they were initially known for. They've even done a good job in recent years of courting smaller indie developers and getting critical darlings available on their systems. (Flower, Journey, Scott Pilgrim, Insanely Twisted Shadow Planet, Limbo, Pixel Junk, etc...)

I don't think its a matter of no one noticing. It's just that Sony has finally been faced by some stiff competition, and they are no longer in the dominant position they once occupied.
 
Yeah, I don't think we'll see anyone dominate the market the way Sony did with the PS2, or Nintendo did with the SNES etc. again.

With exclusive games just being mainly down to a few big first party franchises, and a lot of the biggest, system selling games (Call of Duty, Madden) being multiplatform there's just not a lot to draw a huge part of the market to one console over the others anymore.

Portables, on the other hand, Nintendo will probably continue to dominate just because kids will always be a huge chunk of that market and they have the brand recognition and family friendly reputation locked down there.
 
A lot of people forget that Sony essentially lucked into their first two console generations. They waltzed into a situation that was ideally suited for them. And they faced no real competition.

With the PS1, they were going up against the 3DO, the Sega Saturn, and the N64. The 3DO was overpriced and already on the way out by the time the PS1 released. The Sega Saturn was premature, more expensive, and a nightmare to program for. The N64 was late out of the gate, had a format that was excessively expensive to produce and didn't have as much overall memory, and continued Nintendo's draconian 3rd party policies. Sony's PS1 and permissive licensing was exactly what the industry had been waiting for, and the rest is history.

With the PS2, Sony again got some lucky breaks. The Dreamcast could have caused them some trouble, but Sega's bad management sunk their hardware division before it really got a chance. The PS2's most promising rival was dead in the water before the competition even got a chance to heat up. The GameCube was an also-ran that came out a year later when some of the PS2's biggest titles were starting to hit. The XBox was an untested factor that had to struggle constantly to gain mindshare. Ultimately, the Cube and Box duked it out for the PS2's leftovers, which left Sony cleaning up once again.

And that brings us to the current hardware cycle. This time, Nintendo took a completely different tack to their hardware, and this gamble paid off handsomely. Some very effective marketing helped to cement their success. Microsoft got their act together with the 360, and their foresight in developing and promoting XBox Live started to pay off. In a way, the early success of the Wii hamstrung the possibilities for the much more expensive PS3. While Sony did a much better job with the hardware on the PS3 (as compared to their previous consoles), their fetishistic approach to hardware development shot them in the foot when it came to marketing and selling their new console.
 
I have (or had, hah) a PC, 360, and PS3 in the living room. I wanted the PS3 for the easy browsing from the couch, better media support, Yellow Dog, and I wanted to hit up their exclusives.

And with the exception of Uncharted being pretty damn fun, I couldn't have gotten fucked harder by Sony. Then there was the whole hack and then there was the suing of the kid who was trying to give me back one of the reasons I bought the thing in the first place.

Sony can eat a bag of dicks.

/just opinions, right?
 
[quote name='Richard Kain']A lot of people forget that Sony essentially lucked into their first two console generations. They waltzed into a situation that was ideally suited for them. And they faced no real competition.

With the PS1, they were going up against the 3DO, the Sega Saturn, and the N64. The 3DO was overpriced and already on the way out by the time the PS1 released. The Sega Saturn was premature, more expensive, and a nightmare to program for. The N64 was late out of the gate, had a format that was excessively expensive to produce and didn't have as much overall memory, and continued Nintendo's draconian 3rd party policies. Sony's PS1 and permissive licensing was exactly what the industry had been waiting for, and the rest is history.[/QUOTE]
Heh, lots of lost information here.

PS1 was originally in development by Nintendo, or would have been had they not been greedy. Sega Saturn was released prematurely because Sega decided it would secretly launch the console on the eve of E3, without telling anyone -- including retailers, marketers, developers, etc. While it was a sweet surprise for gamers, it lacked any hype build up and the games weren't ready for launch. N64 was a day late and a dollar short, because anyone at launch can tell you about the three (Mario64, Pilotwings, and Wave Race 64 IIRC) games available at launch for the first MONTH. Because Nintendo had botched a deal with both Sony and Philips for a CD-based system, they retained the cartridge design -- and all the royalty fees of being the only capable manufacturer of carts for the games. Ever wonder why their games always cost $20 more than Playstation? Besides obvious production costs, that's why.

By the time PS2 was ready to roll out, they had pretty much dominated the market by default and fans were ready to pay hand over fist for the next generation. And that's in a literal sense considering a huge shortage in chips caused initial shipments to already purchased allocations to be short. Supply and demand made the price of PS3 in 2006 look like chump change.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='jkam']The PS3 was the last console I bought this generation. I'm sure a lot of people have ignored the console as well. I think it's time to start looking at Sony again. They are in 3rd place so it's put them in a different position then they were with the PS2.

I bought a VITA and despite what people say it's a brilliant device and very powerful for a handheld. There are some really great games out already and now today Sony announces Cross-Buy which nets you a PS3 copy and a VITA copy for the same price on full retail games.

This on top of the sheer awesome that is Playstation Plus and all the free games that come with it is something that shouldn't be ignored. I feel as if with Plus (just recently joined) I'm getting more than I ever did with XBL for my $50 per year. It's nice to hear they will be upping the cloud storage cap as well to 1GB.

I feel like a hypocrite since I've only more recently (probably since the VITA launch) paid attention to Sony again but I think they are really starting to turn it up and are looking to compete with the iphone, android, and even OnLive Markets.[/QUOTE]

the CROSS BUY is it going to be only one package or will there be THREE

give you an idea (I know its not a CROSS BUY)

MLB THE SHOW 2012
ps3 60
VITA 40 when they first came out

WILL IT LOOK LIKE

MLB THE SHOW 2013
PS 3 60
VITA 40
OR
CROSS BUY ONLY VERISON out for 70 /80


if its the CROSS BUY I can see them destorying both systems cause i dont know a PS3 and WILL NOT PAY 30 more just cause it comes with a free ps3 verison
 
[quote name='speedracer']I have (or had, hah) a PC, 360, and PS3 in the living room. I wanted the PS3 for the easy browsing from the couch, better media support, Yellow Dog, and I wanted to hit up their exclusives.

And with the exception of Uncharted being pretty damn fun, I couldn't have gotten fucked harder by Sony. Then there was the whole hack and then there was the suing of the kid who was trying to give me back one of the reasons I bought the thing in the first place.

Sony can eat a bag of dicks.

/just opinions, right?[/QUOTE]

That's your opinion from your hacker perspective but it is a great games console.

I'm glad they're making the Ouya because that console seems like it's one for the hackers. Sony obviously doesn't care about the hacker crowd so I don't know why you would support them with your money.

Personally I love Sony products. High quality with more customization and features then the competition. But you do have to stay between the lines and that's not for everyone.
 
[quote name='camoor']That's your opinion from your hacker perspective but it is a great games console.

I'm glad they're making the Ouya because that console seems like it's one for the hackers. Sony obviously doesn't care about the hacker crowd so I don't know why you would support them with your money.

Personally I love Sony products. High quality with more customization and features then the competition. But you do have to stay between the lines and that's not for everyone.[/QUOTE]
Getting on stage and saying your device supports linux, mkvs, and has a rad browser that will be controller driven is sort of telling the home theater fans that you're releasing the holy grail.

It wasn't so much "us" trying to turn their hardware into what we wanted as it was them directly marketing to us with big bright lights and bullhorns.
 
[quote name='speedracer']Getting on stage and saying your device supports linux, mkvs, and has a rad browser that will be controller driven is sort of telling the home theater fans that you're releasing the holy grail.

It wasn't so much "us" trying to turn their hardware into what we wanted as it was them directly marketing to us with big bright lights and bullhorns.[/QUOTE]

If you're saying that the PS3 sucks for people who want to hack it, I think we can all agree. I'm just pointing out that 99.999% of people who bought the PS3 could care less about how hackable it is.
 
I want to like my ps3 but every time I try to play a game I have to sit through 30 minutes of updates it seems, so I always go 360 for multi platform
 
[quote name='KtMack23']I want to like my ps3 but every time I try to play a game I have to sit through 30 minutes of updates it seems, so I always go 360 for multi platform[/QUOTE]

This is a bit of a trade-off. It is true that PS3 games do seem to get a lot more updates, and this often leads to delays when firing a game up that you haven't played for a while. On the other hand, it also means that PS3 games are able to get regular updates automatically, and have those updates applied without having to take any action of your own.

On the 360, it has come to light that Microsoft's rather draconian certification policies can actually prevent games from being updated when they really need it. While downloading updates before playing a game can be annoying, those updates are usually correcting bugs and improving the stability of the game. Those updates also allow developers to add content to PS3 games that isn't permitted on 360 releases.

While your impatience is understandable, it shouldn't be a reason to buy a game on the 360 as opposed to the 360. Do a little research to make sure your cross-platform purchases aren't screwing you over.
 
[quote name='KtMack23']I want to like my ps3 but every time I try to play a game I have to sit through 30 minutes of updates it seems, so I always go 360 for multi platform[/QUOTE]

ha, this is my exact prob. I dont play enough so this happens to me EVERYTIME!!
 
[quote name='KtMack23']I want to like my ps3 but every time I try to play a game I have to sit through 30 minutes of updates it seems, so I always go 360 for multi platform[/QUOTE]
:applause:What's annoys me more is that many of the damn updates for games aren't even patches to fix issues with the game. Case in point: Battlefield 3 had a 600mb patch the one night I went to play it. I Googled it and it was to tweak multiplayer, which I had never played and never would bother with due to all of the high level pick you off in a second players on there.

So I signed out of PSN and played the game for a couple more nights. Then I got bored with it and got rid of it for more than I paid to BB.

That's like a lot of the firmware updates for the PS3 as well. They add or tweak shit I could care fuckin' less about, but I still have to download and install the update or I can't get on PSN. I don't give a fuck about Netflix or anything other than playing games on the PS3.
 
Yeah, two things they need to work on is upping the speed of downloads on PSN and coming up with a better dashboard interface.

In terms of multiplatform stuff, I get most everything on 360 as I like that controller a ton more. I'll look at some reviews and make sure the 360 version doesn't have bugs or worse graphics etc. first of course. But all things equal I'll go 360 for the controller and having more friends to game with if it's something I may play online.
 
[quote name='Richard Kain']This is a bit of a trade-off. It is true that PS3 games do seem to get a lot more updates, and this often leads to delays when firing a game up that you haven't played for a while. On the other hand, it also means that PS3 games are able to get regular updates automatically, and have those updates applied without having to take any action of your own.

On the 360, it has come to light that Microsoft's rather draconian certification policies can actually prevent games from being updated when they really need it. While downloading updates before playing a game can be annoying, those updates are usually correcting bugs and improving the stability of the game. Those updates also allow developers to add content to PS3 games that isn't permitted on 360 releases.

While your impatience is understandable, it shouldn't be a reason to buy a game on the 360 as opposed to the 360. Do a little research to make sure your cross-platform purchases aren't screwing you over.[/QUOTE]

Exactly, that's why the PS3 experience is overall better, because of those tweaks and updates. Christ some of you people better not get a smartphone, if you think PS3 is bad the app updates will make your head explode.
 
[quote name='Richard Kain']This is a bit of a trade-off. It is true that PS3 games do seem to get a lot more updates, and this often leads to delays when firing a game up that you haven't played for a while. On the other hand, it also means that PS3 games are able to get regular updates automatically, and have those updates applied without having to take any action of your own.

On the 360, it has come to light that Microsoft's rather draconian certification policies can actually prevent games from being updated when they really need it. While downloading updates before playing a game can be annoying, those updates are usually correcting bugs and improving the stability of the game. Those updates also allow developers to add content to PS3 games that isn't permitted on 360 releases.

While your impatience is understandable, it shouldn't be a reason to buy a game on the 360 as opposed to the 360. Do a little research to make sure your cross-platform purchases aren't screwing you over.[/QUOTE]
Are there any actual examples of a multiplatform game getting a patch on PS3 but not a title update on 360? I'm sure that situation happens very rarely if at all. The issue is more with much slower download speeds for patches on PS3.
 
[quote name='camoor']Exactly, that's why the PS3 experience is overall better, because of those tweaks and updates. Christ some of you people better not get a smartphone, if you think PS3 is bad the app updates will make your head explode.[/QUOTE]

For the record, I think the PSN/PS3 updates have gotten much better than they were in, I dunno, 2009ish. I was forever getting stuck downloading some 400 mb thing over a span of 2 hours.

That said, my phone just updates itself automatically. I can't be alone in that right?
 
[quote name='Ryuukishi']Are there any actual examples of a multiplatform game getting a patch on PS3 but not a title update on 360? I'm sure that situation happens very rarely if at all. The issue is more with much slower download speeds for patches on PS3.[/QUOTE]

Well, the most obvious example would definitely be Valve, and all of the games they release. The console releases for Valve games can get regular updates and free expansions on the PS3, but not on the 360. (since Microsoft requires that such updates be for-pay) Valve has come out in the past heavily in favor of the PS3 and the greater degree of freedom that it provides developers.

And of course, there is the recent Fez incident, where the developer actually opted to not patch their game due to the extra expense necessary on the 360.

It's becoming more of an issue, and a lot of developers are taking notice.

The regular patching on the PS3 is actually a sign of greater flexibility and freedom for developers. While it can be a tad annoying for someone looking to jump right into a game, there is a very good reason behind it. There are plenty of other, better reasons to favor the 360 over the PS3 in terms of cross-platform titles. These include performance issues, investment in XBox Live, addiction to GamerScore, all of your friends play on XBox, etc...

Performance issues are usually on a game-by-game basis, and require a bit of research to know about ahead of time. I learned from reading reviews that the 360 version of Bayonetta performs nice and smooth, while the PS3 version was buggy and had abnormally long loading times. So I made sure to pick up the 360 version instead of the PS3. I've never subscribed to XBox Live, so for most of my games I go ahead and get the PS3 version.
 
[quote name='Richard Kain']Well, the most obvious example would definitely be Valve, and all of the games they release. The console releases for Valve games can get regular updates and free expansions on the PS3, but not on the 360. (since Microsoft requires that such updates be for-pay) Valve has come out in the past heavily in favor of the PS3 and the greater degree of freedom that it provides developers.

And of course, there is the recent Fez incident, where the developer actually opted to not patch their game due to the extra expense necessary on the 360.[/QUOTE]
Fez is an Xbox exclusive. You can speculate that a PS3 version would have received the needed patch that it didn't get on Xbox, but that's not an example.

And I'm also not aware of Portal 2 or The Orange Box receiving patches on PS3 that they didn't get on Xbox. Please correct me if that did happen and I just didn't know about it.
 
[quote name='Richard Kain']Well, the most obvious example would definitely be Valve, and all of the games they release.[/QUOTE]

I thought the most obvious example was the Silent Hill HD Collection which got a patch on the PS3 but not the 360. It happened in the past two weeks or so.
 
[quote name='4thHorseman']I thought the most obvious example was the Silent Hill HD Collection which got a patch on the PS3 but not the 360. It happened in the past two weeks or so.[/QUOTE]
Oh yeah, good point! I forgot about that. There you go.
 
That's one time I'm ok with a game having patches, is when it fixes a really fucked up game. But I've actually started to hold off on buying games until I'm sure it's not completely broken at launch and will require extensive work to fix.

In those cases, I'll buy the games used once the patches are out, since I don't want to reward a company that puts out such glitchy shit.
 
I think MS's pay/update is far more beneficial to consumers than Sony's open season method. With the MS method a company better take care to put out a glitch free product. Two, if glitches or issues come to light, they try and hit them all at once in a single patch to avoid that fee multiple times versus "fix the save game glitch this week, we'll get the boss glitch next week and the audio glitch the week after," necessitating multiple updates, and multiple nights of me watching an update bar vs. playing.

I can see the free reign method being attractive to developers but I'm not quite understanding why any consumer would appreciate this method more, at least in regards to broken/glitchy games. Sure it gives devs room to add more features at no cost to them, but as pointed out, those examples are rare at best.

[quote name='camoor'] Christ some of you people better not get a smartphone, if you think PS3 is bad the app updates will make your head explode.[/QUOTE]

Talk about your failed analogies.

- iOS updates take a fraction of the time PS3 firmware updates.
- iOS updates aren't required at all, you can still shop to your hearts content (don't care about X new feature? Don't update)
- app updates take no time at all compared to PS3 game updates
- app updates run in the background and don't affect whatever else you are doing
- app updates are also optional. Want to hop into a game w/o updating? Go for it.

App updates are trivial. PS3 firmware and game updates are an inconvenience. Comparing the two is nonsense.

[quote name='camoor']Exactly, that's why the PS3 experience is overall better, because of those tweaks and updates.[/QUOTE]

Let me guess, you got a second job to afford your PS3 didn't you?

Anecdotal, but I started Walking Dead last night (courtesy of PS+). Had to sit through a mandatory 15+ minute update. I can't speak for the 360 version but having both systems since launch, I'm 99% sure that same update on the 360 would have taken about 2 minutes, TOPS. 15 minutes is unacceptable. Pseudo-free is nice, but I'm thinking about just buying them on the 360 now. I love my PS3 with it's Uncharteds, Ratchet & Clanks, Flowers, Edens, etc. but I just can't fathom building my main ame library on a system that's so broken on their end. Being 6 years into the life of the system, downloads and updates still taking just as long as on launch day is inexcusable. Talk about a firmware update that would be more than welcome.
 
The only issue I have with Sony's updates is that when you first install the game, it should also install any updates. It is bad design when you install a game, then before you even play it it asked you to update the game to the latest version.

But, I really haven't run into an issue all that often that before I play an already installed game that it does an update.
 
[quote name='camoor']Exactly, that's why the PS3 experience is overall better, because of those tweaks and updates. Christ some of you people better not get a smartphone, if you think PS3 is bad the app updates will make your head explode.[/QUOTE]

It's not the frequency of updates that bother me, it's that they're so damn slow to download. It sucks when you have an hour to game and you turn on a game and can't play it without doing an update and that ends up taking 20 minutes. 360 games get a lot of updates too, but the files tend to be smaller and downloads are a ton faster for me on Xbox Live than PSN. The other acceptable option would be to just let you skip the update and do it later when you're done gaming.

Though I think with PS+ (which I have now) it will automatically download game updates of games you have saves for so it's somewhat--I just haven't used my PS3 much since getting plus as I've been sucked into Skyrim on 360 so I'm not totally sure how those works. But as I understand it, the only time I'd run into non-automatic updates now is when playing a game for the first time--which is still going to be a good bit as I have a backlog of older PS3 games I've never popped in.


And I agree with speedracer about the smartphone app updates. The frequency of them gets old when you have hundreds of apps, but they're optional and you can just ignore them and hit update all before going to sleep etc. Or just do it and do other things while they're updating in the background as long as you don't need to currently use an app with an update.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'd like the cross buy idea more if the prices started coming down on some stuff. Although I have yet to get a Vita, so cross buy doesn't really matter to me unless it's playable on PSP and PS3.
 
[quote name='Richard Kain']A lot of people forget that Sony essentially lucked into their first two console generations.[/QUOTE]

I would call it careful planning and giving the consumer an experience that no-one else could provide. The PS3 failed to do that(in my opinion) and that is why they havent repeated their success.
 
[quote name='Corvin']I think MS's pay/update is far more beneficial to consumers than Sony's open season method. With the MS method a company better take care to put out a glitch free product. Two, if glitches or issues come to light, they try and hit them all at once in a single patch to avoid that fee multiple times versus "fix the save game glitch this week, we'll get the boss glitch next week and the audio glitch the week after," necessitating multiple updates, and multiple nights of me watching an update bar vs. playing.

I can see the free reign method being attractive to developers but I'm not quite understanding why any consumer would appreciate this method more, at least in regards to broken/glitchy games. Sure it gives devs room to add more features at no cost to them, but as pointed out, those examples are rare at best.[/QUOTE]

I'll refer you to the case of Fez. Game's released with bugs, Fez introduces patch to fix it. New patch introduces a bug that would corrupt some player's save files. In order to fix that bug, they'd reportedly have to make a new patch and get that certified by Microsoft, costing them (supposedly) tens of thousands of dollars. Puts them in the position of weighing the cost of a patch versus the ire of the estimated 1% of people affected.

I also gotta say - PS+ has been a godsend here. Once I start playing a game, I never have to wait for a patch for that game again. Their initial patching needs work, I'll grant you that.
 
And I point right back at get the patch right the first time and that shit won't happen. Sorry, I can't feel sorry for a company that puts out a shitty game that needs constant updates to make it work. Why should MS foot the bill for their ineptitude?
 
[quote name='Corvin']And I point right back at get the patch right the first time and that shit won't happen. Sorry, I can't feel sorry for a company that puts out a shitty game that needs constant updates to make it work. Why should MS foot the bill for their ineptitude?[/QUOTE]

They should definately get the game right in the first place so no patches are needed. But when PC can have as many patches released as the developer wants, and the same with Sony (and I'm guessing both do it for minimal to no fee), then Microsoft looks a tad off in that area.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top