A Sony Rant...

[Sinue_v2]

I typed this up in another topic, but it was getting back on track so I decided to delete the post. I don't want that typing to go to waste.. so here it is.

You know... I've always tried to be fairly unbias and open minded when it comes to gaming. I've always believed that games come first and foremost - no matter who makes them. Though behind that, I've always held a bit of a grudge against certain companies.

Nintendo, for one... I never liked because of their past buisness practices. However, they've made it very hard to hate them lately (insanity invokes pity, not anger) with a slew of great games and concepts which can really help the industry grow. I still bear the scars of the 8 & 16 bit console wars, but my "hatred" now is really more of a inside joke for me. I still utterly respect them.

However, Sony... they've really gotten under my skin lately, in a bad way. Their buisness practices, while not quite on the level Nintendo used to be, are still rather underhanded - and sometimes flat out unaccetable. (AKA Root Kit Malware in their CD's, WTF?!?). They've grown far too arrogant and pompus. They're making huge mistakes, and thrashing the competition with outright lies and slander. Sega and Nintendo used to sling mud all the time - but they had at least tried to hide their rivalry behind creative and humorous playful campaigns. Sony is simply slitting throats and letting the blood spray all over the viewing audience...

Sometimes, I think of Sony not so much as a company - but as a social expriment. Just how much horseshit will the gaming populace take before getting fed up and giving up on them? The PS2's launch was an utter disaster with horrible graphics, wretched enchancement to PS1 games, poor launch games, extremely hard to develop for, massive shortages, and faulty hardware. The DVD movie market pushed the PS2 for the first year of it's life.. this would have killed anyone else, yet the PS2 was a success..

Now, it seems, the PS3 is taking that same mentality to the extreme... a $600 price point just because they want to include a Blu-Ray player (which will have very limited use in games this generation) for no other apperant reason than to push it as the industry standard over HD-DVD. Then they blatantly steal or (poorly) imitate their competetors technology... which isn't so bad except that they're claiming it as their own. Not to mention that at least with the 360, you can buy Core and upgrade to premium. You can't do that with the PS3... as it's not completely upgradable to the more expensive model.

And you know what? I bet they will have even worse shortages for the PS3 and still have faulty hardware - forcing gamers to spend $600 multiple times in order to finally get a working model.

Yes, I'll still buy one.. but not with the giddy excitement that I'll have picking up my 360 and Wii. It'll be an unpleasant and humiliating chore I must preform in order to gain access to the games I want to play, like a kid forced to eat his spinach before being allowed to get his desert.

[darthsaber9x9]

Perhaps you could enlighten me as to what Nintendo's business practices were.

[space_butler]

you could always not buy one...I doubt theres going to be many exclusives worth having.

[Saiffy]

On 2006-07-21 02:33, Sinue_v2 wrote:
Yes, I'll still buy one.. but not with the giddy excitement that I'll have picking up my 360 and Wii. It'll be an unpleasant and humiliating chore I must preform in order to gain access to the games I want to play, like a kid forced to eat his spinach before being allowed to get his desert.

Sounds like Sony won anyways.

[-memoru-]

I'm not gonna by one, but i will play with the one my friend is planning to buy. Take that sony! xD

[InfinityXXX]

On 2006-07-21 03:28, darthsaber9x9 wrote:
Perhaps you could enlighten me as to what Nintendo's business practices were.



I think Nintendo owned Love Motels.

[HUnewearl_Meira]

Sinue, the problems of the PS2 are worse than you mention. Remember how Sony made a big deal of their "Cell" technology, and how it was going to be revolutionary in improving graphics by allowing multiple PS3's to divide their work up amongst eachother? Well, it turns out that the pipe is so slow that they're telling developers to bypass it altogether, which means that in the $600 price tag, we're also paying for this crap-ass technology that doesn't even work.

I also remind you that there has never been a successful console that launched at $600. The last console to attempt it was the Atari Jaguar, which as we all know, hardly lasted six months. Don't bother going after the PS3. It's unlikely to last long enough to get any, "OMFG!!" titles, anyway.



On 2006-07-21 03:28, darthsaber9x9 wrote:
Perhaps you could enlighten me as to what Nintendo's business practices were.



Back in the late 80s, if you developed games for the NES, you ONLY developed games for the NES. That was the contract that you had to sign. Developing games for that console meant being restricted from developing games for the Master System or PC, or whatever other platform might be available. That's the biggest part of it.

[Asuke]

On 2006-07-21 13:14, HUnewearl_Meira wrote:
Sinue, the problems of the PS2 are worse than you mention. Remember how Sony made a big deal of their "Cell" technology, and how it was going to be revolutionary in improving graphics by allowing multiple PS3's to divide their work up amongst eachother? Well, it turns out that the pipe is so slow that they're telling developers to bypass it altogether, which means that in the $600 price tag, we're also paying for this crap-ass technology that doesn't even work.

I also remind you that there has never been a successful console that launched at $600. The last console to attempt it was the Atari Jaguar, which as we all know, hardly lasted six months. Don't bother going after the PS3. It's unlikely to last long enough to get any, "OMFG!!" titles, anyway.



On 2006-07-21 03:28, darthsaber9x9 wrote:
Perhaps you could enlighten me as to what Nintendo's business practices were.



Back in the late 80s, if you developed games for the NES, you ONLY developed games for the NES. That was the contract that you had to sign. Developing games for that console meant being restricted from developing games for the Master System or PC, or whatever other platform might be available. That's the biggest part of it.



And that is why NES and the rest of nintendo sucks donkey balls... there i said it!

[HUnewearl_Meira]

I wouldn't go so far as that, Asuke. Let's remember, despite this practice that the overwhelming majority of us were completely unaware of, Nintendo was thoroughly responsible for creating a great deal of cherished memories for an entire generation of our culture.

[Wyndham]

On 2006-07-21 13:22, Asuke wrote:


On 2006-07-21 13:14, HUnewearl_Meira wrote:
Sinue, the problems of the PS2 are worse than you mention. Remember how Sony made a big deal of their "Cell" technology, and how it was going to be revolutionary in improving graphics by allowing multiple PS3's to divide their work up amongst eachother? Well, it turns out that the pipe is so slow that they're telling developers to bypass it altogether, which means that in the $600 price tag, we're also paying for this crap-ass technology that doesn't even work.

I also remind you that there has never been a successful console that launched at $600. The last console to attempt it was the Atari Jaguar, which as we all know, hardly lasted six months. Don't bother going after the PS3. It's unlikely to last long enough to get any, "OMFG!!" titles, anyway.



On 2006-07-21 03:28, darthsaber9x9 wrote:
Perhaps you could enlighten me as to what Nintendo's business practices were.



Back in the late 80s, if you developed games for the NES, you ONLY developed games for the NES. That was the contract that you had to sign. Developing games for that console meant being restricted from developing games for the Master System or PC, or whatever other platform might be available. That's the biggest part of it.



And that is why NES and the rest of nintendo sucks donkey balls... there i said it!


well, I don't like you very much, but do I insult you? grow up.

[rena-ko]

sony will push the ps3 through - remember, it wasnt the ps2 that sold itself, it was the hugeass advertisement scheme. there will always enough retards that are gullible enough. there are enough people that dont know that any other console even exists.

but its nice to see that you got yourself a reason to dislike them.

[HUnewearl_Meira]

I don't think it was even so much the PS2 advertising that sold the PS2 so much as the just popularity of the original PlayStation. The PS3 doesn't have that sort of thing going for it, though. I just can't see it making it.

[HAYABUSA-FMW-]

Its the only Japanese created console this time around that's "next gen."

Same as the PS2, sort of.

So it will have to be a buy for me somewhere along the line when they have enough games out to please everybody, but the $500 package is not stripped down in my opinion since at the moment I lack need for a DVI port to a HDTV and why wouldn't the onboard memory be enough?

SD/mem stick/variety of mem card ports availible wouldn't mean much to me either. Am I putting my media from the cards into the PS3 to play games?

3 times larger HD? Look at the support the PS2 HD got, nearly 0.

But $500 is more than any console needs to be as I don't think I'll be jumping to Blu Ray movies right off the bat either.

[Sinue_v2]

I'm not sure of the techincal side of it (I just caught a snippet of a discussion) but I've heard the PS3 will be bottlenecked by the Blu-Ray drive as well since (supposedly) only reads at 2x or 4x. Granted, this is still a lot of information with the new format - but it would end up giving gamers 25-40% longer load times over DVD technology which can read much faster.

If you know anything more about this and care to extrapolate - be my guest.


Sounds like Sony won anyways.

They get my money, yes. It's the only way to get to the games I want to play. Just because I buy their products, doesn't mean I don't have a right to bitch about them. I think it gives me more of a right to bitch. They make their money off of games.. and it may end up that I do most of my multi-platform purchases on the X360 or Wii, leaving the PS3 there simply for the exclusives - unlike this generation where I tried to spread my multi-console purchases out evenly.

[HUnewearl_Meira]

Here's the solution, Sinue: Buy used. You may have to wait a little longer, but you'll get your console without giving Sony your money.

[Otis_Kat]

On 2006-07-22 11:28, HUnewearl_Meira wrote:
Here's the solution, Sinue: Buy used. You may have to wait a little longer, but you'll get your console without giving Sony your money.



A used Sony product? D:


Blu-Ray technology is just horrid. The movies being made with Blu-Ray arn't being remastered, just upconverted to Blu-Ray, which means their quality isn't really anything above current DVDs. I doubt they will do that in the furture anyway, seeing as it's costly just to do what they do now with Blu-Ray movies. $50 for The Benchwarmers? No thank you.

[Sinue_v2]

No... Sony gains money on licencing fees from games sold - not from consoles. They lose money on consoles sold, which is why software attach rates are so critical in the early years of a console's life. Kinda sick how that works out huh?

Besides, I don't trust a PlayStation product to last much beyond the warranty as it is.. let alone buying one used.