I'm done with PS3!

[Eggsnham]

Are... you serious? I mean, it's your property, do whatever the fuck you want with it, but that's a ridiculous reason to get rid of a gaming system in my opinion.

The only reason things like trophies and gamerscore exist is to show off your e-peen. Which, in my opinion, is a stupid reason to strive for achievements and whatnot. If they made small bonuses that you could get from having a high trophy level/gamerscore, like say, a free menu background or avatar item, then I'd understand a little bit more.

I'd still think it's a ridiculous reason to get rid of it though.

Anyways, I'm just rambling in circles, so I'm done.

 

[Conza]

Extremely loaded question 'which company would rather do business with'. Not Microsoft. They are quintessentially evil, constantly ripping off all of their competitors, cornering the market then screwing their customers. Both consoles have warranties, if you are outside for EITHER manufacturer, they will BOTH laugh at you. Get it right.

Yeah, Sony ne-e-e-ever rips off there competitors. Duelshock controllers, internet connectivity, internal hard drive, and PS Move. Sony is made up of Jedi Masters in the art of ripoffs. I'd like to remind you that two of those ideas were Microsoft's before Sony gave it a try. In fact, the duelshock controllers were such a blatant ripoff that Sony ended up getting sewed for it. What did Microsoft ripoff? Rumble feature (obviously), four controller ports, and internet connectivity. I'm not sure if internet should count because it didn't get popular after Sega tried it, so it was still a risk. Microsoft popularized and innovated a lot more than Sony did. Does that make Sony a bad company? No. A lot of other things do that.

I love how you accuse Microsoft of screwing their customers. I bought a used Xbox 360, and Microsoft still replaced it at their own expense when it broke. When my PS2 had problems, Sony told me that they'd charge $60 to fix it. I just gave them the middle finger and fixed it myself. All that was needed was some internal dust removal, certainly not worth 60 USD. Granted, the PS2 was old, but I didn't clarify to the operator what the serial number was. It would have been the same, if I had the latest model.

The reason I've had it with Sony is because they have contempt for the consumer. I gave up expecting quality from them years ago, because of all the other electronics they make. PS1, PS2, & PSP were anomalies; high quality products in spite of Sony's usual approach. The PS3 and PSVita are typical Sony products. They are overloaded with unneeded special features that they don't even do all that well.

Microsoft does have the same tendency, but they at least feel bad about it. They go out of their way to fix malfunctioning products. So...bad products with terrible customer service...or bad products with good customer service. Yeah, tough call. Microsoft is on a level Sony couldn't reach in their wildest and most insane dreams.

Nintendo is the console developer that is doing relatively best. They trip every other step, but in the right direction at least. Motion controls were a good idea, but it was clearly better suited to be a peripheral than the main controller. This is why Nintendo brushed it aside a few years ago and rarely used it for games. They continue to actually release games (what a novel concept) and improve off their previous efforts.

Nintendo? Really? They're toy makers as far as I'm concerned now, not real console competitors anymore, not on any serious scale.

And 'Acuse Microsoft' there's a concept you might've heard of, its called 'HISTORY' its how we record events from our past, read up on the idea. In Microsoft's 'History' they have a record of doing the all of the things I've said in their main field of software development, in thier hardware endeavours (many of which besides the Xbox have been extreme failures), they haven't been all that redeeming.

I bought a Zune, mostly in protest to the iPod, and when I was overseas it bricked itself, then Microsoft seised all support for the device, due to them once again building cheap products that brake, combined with their complete incompetence when it came to the music player market resulting in them pulling out entirely. I consequently use my 5 year old Creative Zen, which is an immensively more brilliant product.

I've also used the very primitive Xbox 360, I owned one of the original ones that didn't RROD itself. External power supply, no built in wifi, 'battery' powered controllers, non-1080p support, no blu-ray, very poor compared to the PS3.

I admitted to my mistake in buying the product, and traded it in for the best console I've ever purchased - the Playstation 3. The upgrade after trading my 360 games was only 100 or so dollars, an upgrade price of exceedingly good value, as I've played my PS3 much more than my 360.

Internet connectivity and internal hdd? You're completely confused, its the 360 that forces you to buy an adapter to get onto the internet, then a subscription to use their online services, and a proprietry product containing a hdd to upgrade. I've upgraded my PS3's internal hdd to a 320GB 7200RPM for $85, I used a common 2.5 inch drive, no problems occured.

Oh? Microsoft's idea? Much like their original Eyetoy? Oh wait, that was on the Playstation 2, about a decade before Microsoft reused that idea on their own console. ffs.

You can't 'rip off' features like having an 'internet connection', or a rumble pack, or multiple controller ports.

"PS1, PS2, & PSP were anomalies; high quality products in spite of Sony's usual approach." That is completely invalid. Sony overall makes high quality products, as proven by EVERY product of theirs I've ever bought, when used by intelligent consumers, they rarely brake and often have features superior to their competitors in most markets.

Neither company are saints, they both have reasonable warranties, which once void they will both turn you away, sometimes completely (Microsoft with the Zune), or for a price (your experience with the PS2), but the company that makes the superior product in the first place is the one the consumer will have the least issues with.

 

[Archer666]

Oh noes, my totally inconsequential and utterly meaningless numbers aren't showing up! Time to sell the console!

 

[DTH1337]

Ok, I didn't really want to post on this thread again, but I feel with all the negative and sometimes abusive comments, I feel I should speak out.

A lot of people have cliamed that I wrote this thread to get some kind of sympathy or rally fanboys together or something. I said this in an earlier post, and I'll say it again (since its come to my attention that people didn't read my later post), I made this thread simply to state what was wrong with the PS3, what I did to try and solve it and what I did in the end. Not to get any sympathy (never said I wanted it, and you can keep it), and not to rally fanboys (why would I want to do that?), it was simply to state the issue I had with the PS3. That. Is. All. Got it?

Other people have also claimed that the issue I'm talking about is minor, and yes, I admit, it is minor, but that's not the point of why I sold it. As I said before, there are a number of other reasons why I sold the console (eg. console shutting off unexpectedly at points, corrupted data, digitial content taking too long to come to the European store, etc).

Having said that, why are people on this forum writing sometimes insulting comments about this issue. I mean, why? I can take negative comments, but when you throw insults at me and and say something along the lines of "I'm the problem with gamers these days", I just feel ashamed to actually be associated with gamers and gaming in general if this what the internet has sunk certain gamers to.

Finally.

Why is it that my trophies are broken on my PS3, and I don't give a flying shit?

You are a clear example of a self entitled gamer who's rattle fell out of the pram, and you want the whole world's attention about it, sorry but it's the truth. You're not getting any sympathy from me that's for sure.

Isn't this just the insult of the month? "Self entitled". He is entitled to have his trophies working. That's how this works. He bought a product from Sony expecting their advertised features and they did not work as they should. He IS entitled to have these features functional and present in his product.

I can't believe people who seem to claim when a companies product fails it's somehow the consumers fault for not just living with a dysfuncitonal product.

We're not talking about a graphics card or hard-drive failure. We're talking about something that is less than minor. Trophy synching failure doesn't mean that the console stops working, or crashes the games, or remotely stops doing what the console does best, which is playing games. It's like selling your car because the lighter doesn't pop out. It's a complete and utter over-reaction.

That said, it's his console, and it's his imperative what to do with it. But coming to the forums expecting high-fives or support over this debacle is something that should've been reconsidered.

Well, you're right that most people would deem it a minor issue. However, you can't speak with impunity on what should or shouldn't matter to the OP. If he's fed up with his console (and he's later explained that there were many other technical things going wrong with it) it absolutely makes sense to get rid of it.

I'm not sure WHY this thread was made, but I feel it was just venting frustration. I can't say that he expected high-fives and brofists all around (the OP later claimed he didn't make this thread for that reason); but it's still absurd to think that no one ever should be dissatisifed if something on their console doesn't work. Even if it's minor.

I would like to reply to this post made and simply answer the question. To be honest, I'm not entirely sure why I wanted to make a forum of this, but I guess it was frustration that got the better of me in the end. Like I said, I just wanted to state the issue I had with the console, and that's all.

So, I hope that clears things up for everyone. Hopefully.

Thank you for listening.


Oh, and one more thing.

Let me make one thing clear to everyone. It's not the fact that my trophy syncing function was broken that made me want to sell the PS3 (I know it's pretty much what I said in the OP, but hear me out).

There are a number of other reasons why I sold it, such as how broken and buggy the system can be at times such as shutting off for no reason whatsoever, and the fact that when I contacted the customer service, they gave me a stupid reason for why it might be happening (they believed it might be my modem).

It's not because I couldn't sync the trophies that made me sell the PS3 and give up on Sony, it's because of how easy the system messed itself up that just simply made me say "I've had enough!" (that, and the fact that the day this happened, my guarantee expired on it). I understand that my reasons may sound pathetic, maybe even irrational, but that's just the way it is unfortunately.

And finally, the reason I have no regrets on why I sold the PS3 is because I already have Steam, which is far superior and far more reliable than any other platform I have played in the last 5 years or so. I know Steam isn't a console, but if it was, it would probably make owning a 360 or PS3 pointless and unnecessary.

Im sorry, I generally try not to be negative to people comments, as it goes no where, but your reasons are incredibly poor.

The "number of reasons" happens to every console, I had a friend who went through 7 xbox's because they were all "broken and buggy", yet I have not had to replace any of mine. In Fact, I have had less problems with my PS3 then my Xbox by FAR, so I find the generic "its broken and buggy more" to be a lack luster excuse.

At the end of the day, I personally think you just over reacted and made a hip fire decision, which is going to rob of you many good exclusives for the PS3, and frankly, many cross platform games which just look/play better on PS3.

Also, while Steam is great (I also make frequent use of steam), why limit yourself to one platform.

I can easily cope with just one platform. I only had Nintendo consoles for 12 or 13 years, so I'm very capable of simply having one platform.

 

[Conza]

Nintendo? Really? They're toy makers as far as I'm concerned now, not real console competitors anymore, not on any serious scale.

This is incredibly stupid. What makes the Wii a toy? Is it "Skyward Sword"? "Pikmin"? "No More Heroes"? "Mario Kart"? You seriously have to pretend that Nintendo is making toys? If the Wii is a toy, than the PS3 is definitely a toy. You just want to call it a toy because you don't like it and can't think of anything more intelligent to say about it.

I own a Wii, it is a glorified toy. It isn't competing against the other consoles anymore, so it isn't a real consideration, it doesn't try to make games that are modern or interesting, only tries to relive old glories with old characters and stories, I mean, it has recently blatently redone one of its original games on the 3DS. PS3 is a modern console in 2006 (yes, its a bit old), but the Wii is a modern console in 2001, and I'm sorry, that's older.

And 'Acuse Microsoft' there's a concept you might've heard of, its called 'HISTORY' its how we record events from our past, read up on the idea. In Microsoft's 'History' they have a record of doing the all of the things I've said in their main field of software development, in thier hardware endeavours (many of which besides the Xbox have been extreme failures), they haven't been all that redeeming.

Says the guy ignoring Sony's history. Hypocrisy is an ugly thing.

Have the decency to use my name in the quotes ffs.

I won't ignore the history if you present EVIDENCE to the contrary, I've had a lot of good experiences with Sony, and very few with Microsoft, so come at me with something before you pawn it off as 'hyopcrisy'.

I've also used the very primitive Xbox 360, I owned one of the original ones that didn't RROD itself. External power supply, no built in wifi, 'battery' powered controllers, non-1080p support, no blu-ray, very poor compared to the PS3.

Oh, so did you buy the PS2?

PS2 was modern for its time, it was also the best console for-it's-time, it is no longer modern, therefore it is old, but when it was released it was good, and I'd say its stood the test of time better than many others - don't forget, this is the most successful gaming console in history.

Because that was primitive too.

No it wasn't.

Or is it only okay when Sony does it? That is incredibly stupid.

Listen, you need to re-evaluate what you've said, you've called my comments stupid for assessing many of the weaknesses of the 360 contrasted to the same PS3, and when you stack them together, the PS3 wins on all fronts, so therefore it is not stupid to say the 360 is a primitive piece of technology, I say this with first hand experience, I'm not just a fan boy.

The entire point of a game console is to play games. The PS3 has long struggled with it's game library and Sony had to be dragged from their pointless bullshit into making actual games! By the time the PS3 had 3 games of note, both the Wii and Xbox 360 had 7 each. That is pathetic, especially when the PS3 came out before the Wii. The sluggish development of the library was due to all that pointless crap on the machine. Pointless crap on a device? Nah, Sony has never done that.

You're not quite right, the slow development because of a new technology released with the PS3 (The Blu-ray drive), and therefore less developers took up it's tools at first, but I'd put the PS3s library up against both the 360s and Wiis any day

Internet connectivity and internal hdd? You're completely confused, its the 360 that forces you to buy an adapter to get onto the internet, then a subscription to use their online services, and a proprietry product containing a hdd to upgrade. I've upgraded my PS3's internal hdd to a 320GB 7200RPM for $85, I used a common 2.5 inch drive, no problems occured.

I didn't say that usage of the internet was being done right by anyone. My point was that the idea was Segas and Microsoft popularized it.

Sega introduced it, Microsoft AND Sony popularised it.

This obviously shows that it wasn't a priority for Sony until the competition was doing it. That was the point I was making.

You can't 'rip off' features like having an 'internet connection', or a rumble pack, or multiple controller ports.

Both Sony and Microsoft were sued for controller designs. Which means that they ripped it off someone else.

Were the suits successful? Did they have to redesign the controllers as a result? C'mon, the Playstation controller is an original from 199X and Nintendo's Super Nintendo and N64 controllers are nothing like the PS1s, they only share the commonality of 4 directional keys, and 6 input keys, its a pretty basic concept, and whoever sued Sony then (and Microsoft later) clearly weren't successful now were they? Are those companies still paying loyalties to Nintendo? I don't think so.

Neither company are saints, they both have reasonable warranties, which once void they will both turn you away, sometimes completely (Microsoft with the Zune), or for a price (your experience with the PS2), but the company that makes the superior product in the first place is the one the consumer will have the least issues with.

Hey, you know the PS2 was the least advanced console of the last generation? Gee, and its still selling. So why does Sony making the most advanced console mean that they are still just as good? Answer: it doesn't.

WRONG the Playstation 2 was the first console released in the last generation, it was ahead of the Gamecube and it was certainly up to scratch with the Xbox. And what a useless point, since the PS3 is clearly ahead of the 360 now. Just as..? You're missing the point anyway, I'm talking quality of product, not features of product, Sony simply deliver both in their consoles.

 

[synulia]

That's pretty pathetic actually. Choosing to miss out on all the great exclusives for this. Wow.

 

[Conza]

I own a Wii, it is a glorified toy. It isn't competing against the other consoles anymore, so it isn't a real consideration, it doesn't try to make games that are modern or interesting, only tries to relive old glories with old characters and stories, I mean, it has recently blatently redone one of its original games on the 3DS. PS3 is a modern console in 2006 (yes, its a bit old), but the Wii is a modern console in 2001, and I'm sorry, that's older.

"Skyward Sword" won game of the year over "Skyrym" and "Arkham City".

I've seen Portal 2, and Uncharted win 'GOTY' for last year, clearly The Witcher 2 or Skyrim deserved a true GOTY title.

I'd say that's clear competition. Oh, I forgot, that's part of an already established series so it magically doesn't count.

What you mean to say is, a remade game, so no, it doesn't count, because its a game redone again and again and again and again, so it doesn't bloody count. It was a good game, when it was orginally released on the N64.

Well, I can play by your stupid rules and still win.

They aren't stupid, they are well accepted industry opinion, that Nintendo constantly remake the same titles, and who wins anything in this?

What about "No More Heroes", "Red Steal 2" (the first one wasn't all that great), "Rune Factory", "Sakura Wars", "Soul Eater", "Trauma Team", and "Xenoblade"? You probably haven't heard of any of these before.

I've heard of Xenoblade, c'mon everyone's heard of Xenoblade.

And, while were on the subject of old series that need the axe, why did Sony make another Gran Turismo game?

Because Gran Turismo, is the greatest racing game ever, they don't revolve around a story, they are a constant evolution of a true driving simulator, with each game coming closer to the real thing. It's also made by a company called Polyphony Digital, not Sony directly.

And why did they sell the rights for Crash Bandicoot and Jak?

CB was awesome, so was Jak, Naughty Dog aren't the same company they were in the 90s, I'll conceed to that.

Shouldn't they have let the series die after Naughty Dog was finished?

Not Sony, but yes.

Have the decency to use my name in the quotes ffs.

I won't ignore the history if you present EVIDENCE to the contrary, I've had a lot of good experiences with Sony, and very few with Microsoft, so come at me with something before you pawn it off as 'hyopcrisy'.

http://forums.cnet.com/7723-7595_102-292863/my-review-of-sony-piece-of-crap-products-and-software/
http://wololo.net/wagic/2011/04/24/64-of-users-ready-to-boycott-sony-products/
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=sony_bullshit
And that was just the first page of my search.

PS2 was modern for its time, it was also the best console for-it's-time, it is no longer modern, therefore it is old, but when it was released it was good, and I'd say its stood the test of time better than many others - don't forget, this is the most successful gaming console in history.

I had other material in there, this has been misquoted.

*SNIPPED*

Listen, you need to re-evaluate what you've said, you've called my comments stupid for assessing many of the weaknesses of the 360 contrasted to the same PS3, and when you stack them together, the PS3 wins on all fronts, so therefore it is not stupid to say the 360 is a primitive piece of technology, I say this with first hand experience, I'm not just a fan boy.

Denial is so adorable.

I don't find any of your denial adorable at all, at most I find it sad.

Here's some of the technical information on the PS2, Gamecube, and Xbox.
CPU--PS2: 294 MHz, GC: 485 MHz, Xbox: 733 MHz
GPU--PS2: 147 MHz, GC: 162 MHz, Xbox: 233 MHz
RAM--PS2: 32 MB, GC: 24 MB, Xbox: 64 MB
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_video_game_consoles_%28sixth_generation%29
The only console the PS2 was competing with that it was more advanced than was the Dreamcast.

It was released first, it is 'the' most successful gaming console of all time, and the specifications don't support the titles that the PS2 could do, which was far greater than that of the newer and later GC.

Sega introduced it, Microsoft AND Sony popularised it.

PS2 games that could be played online weren't released until 2003, the year after Xbox Live came out. Yeah, I'm sure that had nothing to do with it.

You think they could come up with a fully online system 'in a year'? Dream on. They clearly had plans for it for many years before it was released.

Were the suits successful? Did they have to redesign the controllers as a result? C'mon, the Playstation controller is an original from 199X and Nintendo's Super Nintendo and N64 controllers are nothing like the PS1s, they only share the commonality of 4 directional keys, and 6 input keys, its a pretty basic concept, and whoever sued Sony then (and Microsoft later) clearly weren't successful now were they? Are those companies still paying loyalties to Nintendo? I don't think so.

Yes, they were. The company that owns the patent is Immersion. Nintendo had made a business deal with them so they could use the technology, Microsoft and Sony did not. Both companies were sued. Microsoft settled out of court and was permitted to continue using the function while paying royalties. Sony challenged it and lost. Not only did Sony have to pay for the full price of the controllers they already sold (and the court case), but they had to discontinue production as well. Sony even tried to appeal and lost again. Got to admire their persistence.

The worst part is that Sony lied to us about why the Sixaxis didn't have a rumble feature. They claimed that the motion controls wouldn't work properly with the rumble feature there. What bullshit

You don't know that, just because my DS3 controller has SIXAXIS now, we don't know if they were originally going to just do dualshock, then went to sixaxis and the originals couldn't do the rumble, no one would know that who wasn't involved in the development of the controllers.

, because the Wiimote has a rumble feature and was built around motion controls.

The Wii's 'pathetic' motion controller is little more than an IR light, which is technology from the Super Nintendo (basically).

That was a dick move.

WRONG the Playstation 2 was the first console released in the last generation, it was ahead of the Gamecube and it was certainly up to scratch with the Xbox. And what a useless point, since the PS3 is clearly ahead of the 360 now. Just as..? You're missing the point anyway, I'm talking quality of product, not features of product, Sony simply deliver both in their consoles.

Actually, I was wrong. The Dreamcast wasn't as advanced as the PS2. I wasn't aware of that, but a lot of people forget that console. Like you just did. The Dreamcast was first that generation, and the PS2 wasn't anywhere close to as advanced as the Gamecube

You're right, I'm watching everything on my minidisc player right now!

and was a complete joke

HAHAHAHAHA yes, saying it was a joke 'is' a joke, the joke is you.

when compared to the Xbox

Very amusing.

. What made it such a hot selling item was the fact that it had the largest library of games. Gee, its almost like the point of a game console is to play games!

This has been an interesting diversion, but you've also constantly deflected the issue from the PS3's superiority over the current consoles, to the PS2's limited capabilities considering it was designed AND RELEASED pre-GC/Xbox, which is completely fucking pointless! Yes, the PS2 had less powerful components, but it still had the best games, was the best console of that generation, and is STILL the best console of all fucking time.

Gord.