Why do so many gamers hate Sony?

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

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.
 
[quote name='BattleChicken']No other race can be decimated by the power that is the most prohibitively expensive and risky combination of attacks in the game.[/quote]Fixed.
 
[quote name='meesterjojo'] 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. [/quote]
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.


[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]
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.

[quote name='meesterjojo'] 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. [/quote]
You racist prick.

[quote name='meesterjojo']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. [/quote]
And this has to do with Sony how?

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

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?!


[quote name='meesterjojo']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". [/quote] 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.
 
[quote name='BattleChicken']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.[/QUOTE]


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.
 
[quote name='Thomas96'] I can't give that guy any respect, he can't even program on PS3. [/QUOTE]

Well you can't either.

But then again, you don't command any respect around here either.

So I guess it's equal.
 
I'm done tiptoeing around the fact that I hate the PS3 and they're virtually irrelevant this generation. If that's not okay with you, grow the fuck up. Call be biased, call me misinformed, call me stupid, but don't say I'm afraid to express my own opinion.
 
[quote name='BattleChicken']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.[/QUOTE]


How do we know he CAN develop for the PS3. Until he develops a game on PS3, I'm not going to assume that he can actually do it. I guess in actuality he can program on PS3 just fine.

Does Valve not lose money, hiring EA to port Orange Box to the PS3, and knowing that its not as good as the original make of the game? I don't think they're going to make enough PS3 Orange Box sales, to recoup the money that they spend to port [to ps3], prep, and ship for retail
 
[quote name='Thomas96']I don't think they're going to make enough PS3 Orange Box sales, to recoup the money that they spend to port [to ps3], prep, and ship for retail[/QUOTE]
:lol: That has nothing to do with how well they port it.
 
[quote name='Strell']Well you can't either.

But then again, you don't command any respect around here either.

So I guess it's equal.[/QUOTE]


Well if I had a game that needed to be ported to PS3, I wouldn't let it be done poorly. I'd take a little pride in my product and make sure that its high quality regardless of the platform its on. When did stuff like this become acceptable? When did it become okay, for sloppy ports to be brougth to retail. Valve, EA, definitely not getting my money, when they can't provide a quality product.
 
[quote name='zewone']:lol: That has nothing to do with how well they port it.[/QUOTE]

lol true, but you could lose less, or you could lose MORE..
 
[quote name='Thomas96']Well if I had a game that needed to be ported to PS3, I wouldn't let it be done poorly. I'd take a little pride in my product and make sure that its high quality regardless of the platform its on. When did stuff like this become acceptable? When did it become okay, for sloppy ports to be brougth to retail. Valve, EA, definitely not getting my money, when they can't provide a quality product.[/quote]
...

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html
 
[quote name='Thomas96']Well if I had a game that needed to be ported to PS3, I wouldn't let it be done poorly. I'd take a little pride in my product and make sure that its high quality regardless of the platform its on. When did stuff like this become acceptable? When did it become okay, for sloppy ports to be brougth to retail. Valve, EA, definitely not getting my money, when they can't provide a quality product.[/QUOTE]

Wait a minute - when did it become acceptable?

....Since always?

Developers like to spread their games around as much as they can to get as much money as they can, and they want to do the minimal amount of effort to pull that off. That's always been.

I'll even be fair and place part of the blame on the developers, but part of the blame falls onto whether or not they have access to good tools to help them do porting to begin with. And if your system has a bunch of cores that have to work in unison to get around the bottlenecks inherent in the architecture, then it's up to you to deliver that.

You're complaining about something that has been fundamentally a Nintendo problem forever, and pretty much still is. Which is kind of funny when you think about it.
 
[quote name='zewone']:lol: That has nothing to do with how well they port it.[/QUOTE]


that's not true.. A good port of Orange Box could at least make it at the top 10 gaming sales for the month (December, or January) but with a bad port they probably won't even make it that far. Orange Box isn't a budget title.. its full price, so to me it should be complete and high quality product that runs well.
 
[quote name='Strell']Wait a minute - when did it become acceptable?

....Since always?

Developers like to spread their games around as much as they can to get as much money as they can, and they want to do the minimal amount of effort to pull that off. That's always been.

I'll even be fair and place part of the blame on the developers, but part of the blame falls onto whether or not they have access to good tools to help them do porting to begin with. And if your system has a bunch of cores that have to work in unison to get around the bottlenecks inherent in the architecture, then it's up to you to deliver that.

You're complaining about something that has been fundamentally a Nintendo problem forever, and pretty much still is. Which is kind of funny when you think about it.[/QUOTE]


I remember Mortal Kombat on SNES and Genesis, I don't know which one was the port, but they both were good. Both played good, both had decent graphics for their system. [Nintendo didn't like blood back then... lol] I guess now its not helping developers that Sony purposely designed their system so that it would be difficult to port games to it. [I read that article before the PS3 launched, doubt I'll ever find it again]
 
[quote name='Thomas96']I remember Mortal Kombat on SNES and Genesis, I don't know which one was the port, but they both were good. Both played good, both had decent graphics for their system. [Nintendo didn't like blood back then... lol] I guess now its not helping developers that Sony purposely designed their system so that it would be difficult to port games to it. [I read that article before the PS3 launched, doubt I'll ever find it again][/QUOTE]

Neither were ports of the other. People seem to fondly recall MK Genesis, but the fact of the matter is that it was an awful game that completely lost the feel of the arcade title. The hit recognition was totally different, lack of stereo sound gave it no "oomph" at all (were there even sound effects for the uppercut?), and was a piece of trash.

Nintendo basically handed Acclaim/Sega all their sales on a silver platter by insisting on their "Championship Edition" version. It looked like the arcade game, played like the arcade game, sounded like the arcade game...but also took out the very thing (perhaps the only thing) gamers wanted in the cart.

MK1 is a great example of hardware differences (and perhaps developer differences over time as well). The titles were quite different from the ground up due to hardware differences. There was no mistaking one for the other. "Inferior" hardware on the Genesis side of things exposed itself in this cartridge. Despite these massive differences, though, people greatly preferred the Genesis version of the game (for the obvious reasons, yes - but they also gladly overlooked the massive gameplay differences/flaws in the Genesis version).

These days, however, we have people acting as if it were a mortal sin against God himself that Madden 08 runs at 30 FPS on the PS3.
 
[quote name='whoknows']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.[/quote]

The game is on One DVD on the PC version (sorry if this is a duplicate answer I just saw this while skimming the thread and thought I'd contribute)
 
I don't hate Sony. I had a PS1 and PS2 and played the shit out of them. I have a Sony HDTV, a sony surround receiver and speakers, a Sony upconverting DVD player, put a Sony CD player in my old car, own a Sony Discman, etc. etc.

I just hate what theyd did with the PS3. Launching at $500-600 was just absurd, as I'd never pay anywhere near that for a game console. Most I've paid was $350 for a 360, and I wasn't happy about that. $200 is the sweet spot for me.

And it really rubbed me the wrong way that the reason it cost so much was that they wanted to force Blu Ray, a product I couldn't give a shit less about right now (much less last year) into homes to win that format war.

Combine that with their stupid and arrogant statements along they way, and they've lost my business--at least for this generation.

I don't hate them, I loved the PS1 and PS2, and I'm very happy with the other products of theirs that I own, but I don't like what they did with the PS3 at all, and won't support it. There really aren't many exclusives out or announced that are must plays for me anyway since most big 3rd party games are going to the 360 as well, and I've tired of nearly all their 1st and 3rd party exclusives (pretty well played out on Ratchet, Sly Cooper, Jak and Daxter, Gran Turismo, Final Fantasy, MGS etc.).

No hate for Sony overall, but the PS3 has done everything wrong in terms of what I wanted in a game console, and thus the Wii60 is my gaming setup this generation.

If they put out the PS4 at $400 or under, start winning back some exclusives that can woo me over from the competition next gen, then they will have a good chance at winning my business back.
 
[quote name='jer7583']I'm done tiptoeing around the fact that I hate the PS3 and they're virtually irrelevant this generation. If that's not okay with you, grow the fuck up. Call be biased, call me misinformed, call me stupid, but don't say I'm afraid to express my own opinion.[/quote]

If they are so "Irrelevant" why are you here voicing your opinion? Wouldn't that make your opinion irrelevant?
 
[quote name='DarkNessBear']If they are so "Irrelevant" why are you here voicing your opinion? Wouldn't that make your opinion irrelevant?[/QUOTE]
Do you just want this forum to be a bunch of Sony fan's sucking each other off?
 
[quote name='DarkNessBear'] Quote:
Originally Posted by jer7583
I'm done tiptoeing around the fact that I hate the PS3 and they're virtually irrelevant this generation. If that's not okay with you, grow the fuck up. Call be biased, call me misinformed, call me stupid, but don't say I'm afraid to express my own opinion.


If they are so "Irrelevant" why are you here voicing your opinion? Wouldn't that make your opinion irrelevant?[/quote]
The thread title is "Why do so many gamers hate Sony?" - he says why. So, his post is more in line with the very purpose of the thread than anyone else at this point.

Additionally, your post is a:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/guilt-by-association.html
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Neither were ports of the other. People seem to fondly recall MK Genesis, but the fact of the matter is that it was an awful game that completely lost the feel of the arcade title. The hit recognition was totally different, lack of stereo sound gave it no "oomph" at all (were there even sound effects for the uppercut?), and was a piece of trash.

Nintendo basically handed Acclaim/Sega all their sales on a silver platter by insisting on their "Championship Edition" version. It looked like the arcade game, played like the arcade game, sounded like the arcade game...but also took out the very thing (perhaps the only thing) gamers wanted in the cart.

MK1 is a great example of hardware differences (and perhaps developer differences over time as well). The titles were quite different from the ground up due to hardware differences. There was no mistaking one for the other. "Inferior" hardware on the Genesis side of things exposed itself in this cartridge. Despite these massive differences, though, people greatly preferred the Genesis version of the game (for the obvious reasons, yes - but they also gladly overlooked the massive gameplay differences/flaws in the Genesis version).

These days, however, we have people acting as if it were a mortal sin against God himself that Madden 08 runs at 30 FPS on the PS3.[/quote]

Actually the snes version wasn't anywhere near arcade perfect either. Though it looked more like the arcade one, it moved nowhere near as fast. Also some of the combos "what little there were" were also taken out, or am I thinking of Mortal Kombat 2? But the snes one wasn't anywhere near arcade perfect. It looked the part, but that's about it. The speed was inferior to the genesis one which moved almost at the arcade clip, but still wasn't 100%. The snes was also missing some voices and animation. But you are right on the fact that taking away the blood just made the sega version winner by default. Though to be fair, the sega cd version of Mortal Kombat was probably the closest representation of the original arcade version.

The mortal sin part just cracked me the hell up. Like anyone is going to really notice that extra split reaction time when the game doesn't even move fast enough to make true use of it.
 
Well, that's pretty much my point. People blow that up, and as evidence to prove the PS3 version's inferiority, would bring up a 1Up video (or was it gametrailers?) that played the two side by side, and you would only notice the lack of frames when the game was slowed down a substantial percent, and then also focus on the individual movements of a single player, instead of the gameplay at large.

Is it a difference? Yep. Is it a real difference worth noting? Nope.

Orange Box is up for debate, and I'll reserve judgment on that until I get it from GF. But, again, with only a small number of multiplatform titles performing "poorly" on the PS3, and the majority running identically, it's a false conclusion to blame Sony or the console's architecture. Some folks got it working just fine.

Ah, and you are right, I believe, about SNES Mortal Kombat's speed. The Genesis did have a faster processor, I believe, and that somehow correlated with the EA sports titles playing better on the Genesis (I seem to recall Madden being sluggish on the SNES).
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Neither were ports of the other. People seem to fondly recall MK Genesis, but the fact of the matter is that it was an awful game that completely lost the feel of the arcade title. The hit recognition was totally different, lack of stereo sound gave it no "oomph" at all (were there even sound effects for the uppercut?), and was a piece of trash.

Nintendo basically handed Acclaim/Sega all their sales on a silver platter by insisting on their "Championship Edition" version. It looked like the arcade game, played like the arcade game, sounded like the arcade game...but also took out the very thing (perhaps the only thing) gamers wanted in the cart.

MK1 is a great example of hardware differences (and perhaps developer differences over time as well). The titles were quite different from the ground up due to hardware differences. There was no mistaking one for the other. "Inferior" hardware on the Genesis side of things exposed itself in this cartridge. Despite these massive differences, though, people greatly preferred the Genesis version of the game (for the obvious reasons, yes - but they also gladly overlooked the massive gameplay differences/flaws in the Genesis version).

These days, however, we have people acting as if it were a mortal sin against God himself that Madden 08 runs at 30 FPS on the PS3.[/QUOTE]



WHen I got MK in my hands, I was just glad to have it in my hands. [on either snes or genesis] At least the genesis version had something good about it to look forward to. But in the case of Madden 08 (ps3) 30fps is not the problem with that game. 30fps, can still run smoothly, as it does on the ps2 version. The gameplay itself is choppy and sluggish, the animations are poor as well. Even the 360 version had some glitches. All pro football did a good job with their game despite not having NFL teams, and being at 30fps
 
[quote name='Thomas96'] Even the 360 version had some glitches. All pro [/quote]

Can we please source these claims?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Well, that's pretty much my point. People blow that up, and as evidence to prove the PS3 version's inferiority, would bring up a 1Up video (or was it gametrailers?) that played the two side by side, and you would only notice the lack of frames when the game was slowed down a substantial percent, and then also focus on the individual movements of a single player, instead of the gameplay at large.

Is it a difference? Yep. Is it a real difference worth noting? Nope.

Orange Box is up for debate, and I'll reserve judgment on that until I get it from GF. But, again, with only a small number of multiplatform titles performing "poorly" on the PS3, and the majority running identically, it's a false conclusion to blame Sony or the console's architecture. Some folks got it working just fine.

Ah, and you are right, I believe, about SNES Mortal Kombat's speed. The Genesis did have a faster processor, I believe, and that somehow correlated with the EA sports titles playing better on the Genesis (I seem to recall Madden being sluggish on the SNES).[/quote]

One thing that I also wonder about the 60/30 fps arguement is if they cut a few frames or recycled them to make that speed since they almost do look identacle if you aren't paying attention. Plus the FPS for a sports game at this point isn't noteworthy because when the tackle animation happens and connects with the body itself, you can't really react to it, unlike the first person shooter genre where FPS really is essential from the 30 fps to 60 fps jump.

How about Fight Night Round 3? It looks better on the PS3 overall as a whole, let's call that the superiority of the PS3, the 360 is shit! It doesn't treat the sweat as realistically as the PS3 version! Let us bring down the shit storm and make shenanigans on this example alone where effort determined the graphical abilities, not lazy developers who love to complain.

On the genesis vs snes processor you're correct. The snes had a 3.26 mhz processor while the genesis had a 7 mhz processor. The closest port to the arcade was on the sega cd. Though using essentially the genesis graphics of MK, it had arcade speed, more frames added, full music and voice, and the fatailities were redone from the ground up to look better. But to be fair, when they were combined the Sega CD with Genesis had a combined CPU speed of 20 mhz which is far above what the snes could do. It's all a matter of putting in the time to make it. Though I really do think the sega cd could have held the genesis up if they didn't abandon it so quickly. They abandoned it just as it was getting great games like Popful Mail, Eternal Champions: Challenge from the darkside, Earthworm Jim Special edition and Lunar 2 eternal blue.

And yes, madden was sluggish on the snes. It looked a bit better graphically, but moved a lot slower. That wasn't just for madden though, it was fightng games as a whole that run smoother despite looking worse on the genesis.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']...with only a small number of multiplatform titles performing "poorly" on the PS3, and the majority running identically, it's a false conclusion to blame Sony or the console's architecture.

Some folks got it working just fine.[/quote]
As odd as it feels to disagree with you, your conclusion is the one that is false.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ignoring-a-common-cause.html

Just because the quality of some ports are equal does NOT mean that the architecture isn't difficult to work with, and that seems to be what you are asserting. This argument then ignores the common cause for ALL quality titles -- the work of the development team.

From a gamer's perspective, good games = good platform, however using the games as an indication of the quality of the platform in terms of DEVELOPMENT just doesn't work.

If a dev has to put, lets say 10%, more effort into the PS3 version of a title to make it equal to the PC or Xbox 360 version, then the platform HAS a detrimental impact on the quality, as money, time, and efforts are a tangible, finite resouce. The delays for many of the PS3 version of cross platform titles lends evidence to the idea that that platform IS more difficult to work with. Using that criteria, it could then be said that the PS3 is inferior to comparible platforms from a development perspective.

If platform A and platform B can generate quality Q in X time (time equating to effort, money, and human resources), and platform C requires some substancial (not near zero) value greater than X to equal Q in quality, then logically A or B would be more desirable than C. This is without factoring in market share or potential gains, which would be additionally detrimental to C currently.

The additional time and effort that a developer determined to deliver a quality product pours into the development cycle shouldn't be ignored. Saying "if they only worked harder...' misses the point. Just because some developers are willing to put in the extra effort to have equal quality multi platform titles does not mean that ALL are willing to. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html.

edit: edited to fix my second link.
 
[quote name='zewone']Do you just want this forum to be a bunch of Sony fan's sucking each other off?[/QUOTE]

If the PS3 was truly irrelevant to him he wouldn't be reading the PS3 board at all. Caring about PS3 news or opinions makes that console relevant to him.

And this coming from some gangster wannabe (or whatever it is you're trying to be) when you keep saying the "triple". Everyone else here can type PS3. What do you call the 360, the "circle"?
 
[quote name='zerolens']If the PS3 was truly irrelevant to him he wouldn't be reading the PS3 board at all. Caring about PS3 news or opinions makes that console relevant to him.

And this coming from some gangster wannabe (or whatever it is you're trying to be) when you keep saying the "triple". Everyone else here can type PS3. What do you call the 360, the "circle"?[/QUOTE]
That Triple, dumbass.

And, why wouldn't jer be in a thread titled "Why do so many gamers hate Sony?" when he in fact does.

If the OP wants to know why, then who better to ask then someone who does then some Sony fanboy. People do call the 360, That Circle. Not me, I think that sounds stupid.

[MEDIA]http://youtube.com/watch?v=25LceCPO1ys[/MEDIA]
 
[quote name='zewone']Do you just want this forum to be a bunch of Sony fan's sucking each other off?[/quote]

No, I love the constant arguements and comments like those.

:roll:
 
[quote name='Thomas96']that's not true.. A good port of Orange Box could at least make it at the top 10 gaming sales for the month (December, or January) but with a bad port they probably won't even make it that far. Orange Box isn't a budget title.. its full price, so to me it should be complete and high quality product that runs well.[/quote]

The PS3's killer app, Ratchet and Clank, debuted at number 19 on the sales charts. Fifa 08 (PS2, 360) and Drawn to Life (DS) both outsold it, so what makes you so positive the Orange Box would do so well?
 
[quote name='zewone']

And, why wouldn't jer be in a thread titled "Why do so many gamers hate Sony?" when he in fact does.

[/QUOTE]

You had to click on the board to even see it. Apparently he cares what's going on with the PS3, same with you. It has relevance when people are clicking on the board and checking up on news and opinions about it.
 
[quote name='zerolens']You had to click on the board to even see it. Apparently he cares what's going on with the PS3, same with you. It has relevance when people are clicking on the board and checking up on news and opinions about it.[/QUOTE]
I have a That Triple, why wouldn't I be trying to see what's up?
 
[quote name='BattleChicken']As odd as it feels to disagree with you, your conclusion is the one that is false.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ignoring-a-common-cause.html

Just because the quality of some ports are equal does NOT mean that the architecture isn't difficult to work with, and that seems to be what you are asserting. This argument then ignores the common cause for ALL quality titles -- the work of the development team.

From a gamer's perspective, good games = good platform, however using the games as an indication of the quality of the platform in terms of DEVELOPMENT just doesn't work.

If a dev has to put, lets say 10%, more effort into the PS3 version of a title to make it equal to the PC or Xbox 360 version, then the platform HAS a detrimental impact on the quality, as money, time, and efforts are a tangible, finite resouce. The delays for many of the PS3 version of cross platform titles lends evidence to the idea that that platform IS more difficult to work with. Using that criteria, it could then be said that the PS3 is inferior to comparible platforms from a development perspective.

If platform A and platform B can generate quality Q in X time (time equating to effort, money, and human resources), and platform C requires some substancial (not near zero) value greater than X to equal Q in quality, then logically A or B would be more desirable than C. This is without factoring in market share or potential gains, which would be additionally detrimental to C currently.

The additional time and effort that a developer determined to deliver a quality product pours into the development cycle shouldn't be ignored. Saying "if they only worked harder...' misses the point. Just because some developers are willing to put in the extra effort to have equal quality multi platform titles does not mean that ALL are willing to. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html.

edit: edited to fix my second link.[/QUOTE]

:lol: Been reading up on your logical fallacies today, eh?

There are two things being argued here (here being this thread, not your post exclusively):
1) The PS3 is an inferior console
2) The PS3 is more difficult to take advantage of in terms of development

I wholly disagree with #1, and can see some evidence of #2 (given the delays of, at least, Stranglehold and Orange Box - are there others as well that are at least 4 weeks separated?).

Nevertheless, the "unwillingness," as you speculate it, of programmers to optimize code may very well exist. Newell did not mince words with his disdain for the PS3 as a console to develop for. Now the problem becomes one of a self-fulfilling prophecy. His treatment of the PS3 Orange Box as a bastard child makes me uncertain about its quality - irrespective of the reviews - and wonder if I'd want to play it/buy it. So, if people don't buy it because they're skeptical of it, and the 360 version outsells it tenfold, the PS3's shortcomings become, at least in part, a developer-created reality.

But that's neither here nor there, I suppose.

What I will say is that, to the best of my knowledge, developers have had their hands on 360 development tools for far longer than PS3 development tools. We also know that the PS3 is a far more complex system to develop for. So your hypothetical 10% is not cut-and-dry as you think (just like "development costs" for a multiplatform title can rarely be understood or partitioned into claims of "this version cost this much"). If that 10% now makes next year's model (and let's be honest, as gamers we're going in the direction that games are almost like automobiles at this point :lol:) far easier to develop, then it's worth it, no?

Going to Madden again, if they could have optimized the code this year, then making Madden 09 will likely require fewer manhours. And we all know the improvements to Madden from year to year can't be *that* bloody involved. ;)

And you're quite right about developers not being willing to. That's what makes me sick - moreso quality developers halfassing very good games than shitty developers halfassing shovelware. I can at least spot the latter when it's still on the shelf at the store.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
Nevertheless, the "unwillingness," as you speculate it, of programmers to optimize code may very well exist. Newell did not mince words with his disdain for the PS3 as a console to develop for. Now the problem becomes one of a self-fulfilling prophecy. His treatment of the PS3 Orange Box as a bastard child makes me uncertain about its quality - irrespective of the reviews - and wonder if I'd want to play it/buy it. So, if people don't buy it because they're skeptical of it, and the 360 version outsells it tenfold, the PS3's shortcomings become, at least in part, a developer-created reality.

...

And you're quite right about developers not being willing to. That's what makes me sick - moreso quality developers halfassing very good games than shitty developers halfassing shovelware. I can at least spot the latter when it's still on the shelf at the store.[/QUOTE]

Self-fulfilling prophecy? Not entirely, because that implies Newell is full of shit and shooting from the hip behind unkempt greasy hair.

Multi-core processors are a bitch. I'm not so sure everyone understands what the beef some developers have with them is. Imagine playing Pacman with 8 Pacmen on the screen, simultaneously. All you have is the standard joystick and a switch button. You can switch between the Pacmen, but you have no control over which one you get when you hit the button. Also, if any of them die, you lose the entire game. Plus, it cost twenty bucks just to play it once. And even if you COULD determine which Pacman you want to switch to, you had to plan that WAY in advance - under non-normal gaming conditions - so that once you get into the game and have a set plan at your disposal, you might find that it sucks because switching to Pacman #3 ends up being disastrous because the ghost went after him instead of #5, which is not what you expected.

That's kind of what it's like, and Newell's point wasn't so much "that sucks" as it was "If you're going to make a game for the PS3, you've got to completely re-write the code from scratch to do so, so you have to plan on essentially making the game over again." Now, his opinion of that circumstance was most certainly "that sucks," but that was him expressing that the system is going to be hard to get even simple code to run, to say nothing of these mythical proportions that Sony keeps insisting will occur down the line. (Which, by the way, I'm not 100% convinced of, because that requires a programmer to want to be patient enough to wring the power out of the system like it was liquid gold.) Point being that a commitment to the PS3 is a commitment, not just a port, since that implies the ability to easily change code over to that environment.

So that's kind of why a developer is "unwilling," as you put it. Which is the same method of thinking re: shovelware on the Wii. Those shitty eighteenth-string teams giving us Chicken Shoot are operating under the same conditions and mentalities that even the "awesome" devs are when they try to port something to/from the PS3 - trying to get it done ASAP to keep their ass in bidness.

It's kind of like how you imply Wii owners have nothing to be mad about when it comes to third party support, because "well it's not my fault that you guys are buying Carnival Games, which gives more impetus for copycat efforts, which is why you don't get Assassin's Creed." Yes and no. Yes because yes. No because that's bullshit devs taking the easy way out.

I imagine this generation that "a shitty port on the PS3" and "nothing but mini-games on the Wii" will be equivalent to the shitty ports the 'Cube got last time around, actually, and that developers will be citing roughly the same nonsense excuses of "well, our shitty port of (Sports Game Here) didn't sell well on the 'Cube, so we scrapped it/removed features/did things to intentionally make it a shitty port."

Oh, count on it. This isn't going to be the only instance of a bad port or a carnal game feast.
 
The PS3 is the gamecube of this gen. Get used to it. I don't understand people trying to compare the PS3 and 360 when they're clearly not equal. Or that there's some magical surge of titles thats going to make sales blow up and bring them past 360 or Wii, because it's never going to happen.
 
[quote name='jer7583']The PS3 is the gamecube of this gen. Get used to it.[/QUOTE]
Nah, PS3 actually has decent 3rd party support.
 
Gamecube did for its first few years too. Despite getting the crappier ports..
 
[quote name='jer7583']The PS3 is the gamecube of this gen. Get used to it. I don't understand people trying to compare the PS3 and 360 when they're clearly not equal. Or that there's some magical surge of titles thats going to make sales blow up and bring them past 360 or Wii, because it's never going to happen.[/quote]

You're forgetting that the 360 is only selling well in north america. In Japan the 360 is SHIT. In Europe the 360 is SHIT. This is more akin to the Genesis VS Snes war. And where do all the GOOD games that people love to jack off to come from? take a wild guess. It is NOT America son. If people think that a console can live only on American games, take a look at the Genesis, suceeded at least for a whie in the US, was barely alive in Japan.

The 360 is only a PS2 in respects of how shitty the hardware actually is. And the never going to surpass the 360? That happened in Japan for the ENTIRE lifespan of the PS3 barring a few weeks here and there for big releases.
 
[quote name='Paco']And where do all the GOOD games that people love to jack off to come from? take a wild guess. It is NOT America son. If people think that a console can live only on American games, take a look at the Genesis, suceeded at least for a whie in the US, was barely alive in Japan.[/QUOTE]
This would have been correct if it was 1992.

Get with the times before you make asinine statements.

Anyways, the 360 is getting more Japanese support than the That Triple.
 
[quote name='Strell']It's kind of like how you imply Wii owners have nothing to be mad about when it comes to third party support, because "well it's not my fault that you guys are buying Carnival Games, which gives more impetus for copycat efforts, which is why you don't get Assassin's Creed." Yes and no. Yes because yes. No because that's bullshit devs taking the easy way out.[/QUOTE]

I don't see how what you say early on doesn't make it a self-fulfilling prophecy; particularly in the case of OB, where (IIRC), Valve worked on it early on, then pawned it off on an EA studio to finish the job.

Perhaps, if your assertions are correct, it's a question of direction - that porting a game to the PS3 is more difficult than starting it there and moving it to the 360. There are but a few examples of that (UTIII comes to mind, and that won't be on the 360 for a bit yet), so it's tough to really tease that out.

I quoted the part above because I don't believe I implied (and if I did, certainly did not intend to do so) that Wii owners have nothing to complain about/themselves to blame for the quality of 3rd party software. Feel free to point me to that post. As a Wii owner, I look forward to good software - I may not buy GHIII or Madden, or whatever on it - but I did buy RE4, MLB Powerpros, and somethin' else - Trauma Center, I think. I will buy quality software that can't be replicated on other consoles. That's why I bought a Wii. If I were to assign blame for the deluge of shovelware, I would bemoan Nintendo and their approval process far sooner than I would point the finger at consumers.
 
[quote name='zewone']This would have been correct if it was 1992.

Get with the times before you make asinine statements.

Anyways, the 360 is getting more Japanese support than the That Triple.[/quote]
That was also essentially the case for the original Xbox also. We know how well THAT console did. What did Halo have besides multi platform games that were graphically superior, two halo games and a few sega games? Absolutely NOTHING.

the 360 is getting more support in Japan then the PS3? And what are you going to use to back that up, Blue Dragon? Enchanted Arms? The very few loose rpgs that the system has gotten so far compared to what it got in the past?

Well at least in respects to the previous xbox which basically got nothing but ports, the 360 at least has some original content from Japan this time around.

The 360 is distinctly a American system. Very few actual Asian people own the system. I'm not saying it'll bomb in America, but overall the 360 overtaking the entire world console wise is quite out there.
 
Okay...

If Xbox did so bad then why did they sell more consoles (their very 1st try in videogames) than the Gamecube?

Either way, there are plenty of American, European, and yes, even Japanese devs devoting resources to make games for the 360.

It's a whole different ball game.
 
[quote name='jer7583']Gamecube did for its first few years too. Despite getting the crappier ports..[/QUOTE]
Maybe first year, but the PS3 is pretty getting just as much 3rd party support as the 360, so that argument fails.
 
Zew's right; last generation, Square wouldn't even touch the Xbox; thus far they've not been very kind to it (FFXI and Sylpheed?), but if the rumors of an exclusive Front Mission game pan out, that (along with the 360-exclusive titles from Mistwalker) shows how times have changed, and show you that Japanese developers are indeed looking outside of their country when determining what console to support.

And it serves the goddamned Japanese right for making Before Crisis and that FFIV sequel cellphone only. :lol:

EDIT: What th'hell y'all doin' respondin' to jer? He's entitled to his opinion, but if someone has an opinion along the lines of "when I shit in my hands it makes my hands warm," there's no real need to respond to it. CUT IT OUT, y'all.
 
[quote name='zewone']Okay...

If Xbox did so bad then why did they sell more consoles (their very 1st try in videogames) than the Gamecube?

Either way, there are plenty of American, European, and yes, even Japanese devs devoting resources to make games for the 360.

It's a whole different ball game.[/quote]

The gamecube was basically a disaster from the start. No real mario game, nintendo was still in their arrogant we can make any media we want and rip off the developer stage and so forth.

Who really can tell the future, but people saying the 360 already won is a little bit short sighted. Sony also declaring they won and that their system was the TRUE next gen was also hilarity incarnate and thanks to that, they have a lot of people that want to see them fall just because.

Or maybe Sony really WILL fall just like NEC who ALSO bombed on their third console. Who really knows? I'm just tired of people saying that the PS3 is instafail simply because of the programming difficulties involved in it. Or the fact that the ATI chipset is slightly superior graphically this time around in some aspects that are used in current games rather then future games.
 
[quote name='Paco']The gamecube was basically a disaster from the start. No real mario game, nintendo was still in their arrogant we can make any media we want and rip off the developer stage and so forth.
[/QUOTE]

I'm wondering what cereal you eat, and just how old the box is, since you're apparently taking all your facts from them.
 
[quote name='Paco'] In Europe the 360 is SHIT. [/quote]

Really, the non-US/Japan numbers from VG charts beg to differ.
Since non-US/Japan (Others per VGC) sales are 90% EU then I would say you are full of "SHIT."
I realize the price cut allowed the PS3 to slip past 360 sales 10-15% in Europe but overall the PS3 market penetration there is "SHIT."

Let's keep fanboyism down to a minimum. I can say as a PS3 owner that I think it is extremely disappointing as a game system- but not because of it's build quality (which I think is excellent) but because it's game selection and online community is incredibly weak, even taking into account it's only been out a year.
360 still has nearly a 2:1 market share outside US and Japan.
ng_sales.png

http://vgchartz.com/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top