The Playstation Loses.. To the Playstation

[scotth266]

While that is true in theory, the practical state brings up a few more problems. Where the hell are they gonna get games? Their first party sucks,the creative people who want to make something exceptional are flocking to the Ps3 (like Quantic Dream and Tecmo - yes, Tecmo, they always seem to follow the system with the most power), and Epic have had less than a year to make something. To have any chance of saving themselves, they need a slew of big name and fantastic looking games, but what big names aren't busy doing something else?

And then there's the fact that they are talking about "the future of home entertainment", which really sounds like "a whole lot of crap that isn't to do with games, and is really poorly thought out because we are not a damn entertainment company".

First off: who qualifies as first-party for Microsoft? And how do you guarantee that their games suck? You might not like them, but others could.

As far as Quantic Dream and Techmo go, I'd like to see a source saying that they're going PS3 solo. I doubt that's the case: it's far more likely that they're going multiplatform, a smart move on their part, and a another good sign for the PS3. The news about Quantic excites me though: their stuff is always neat. Techmo... I'm trying to remember a Techmo game. What was the last good one they made? Not insulting them, I'm honestly having a memory lapse.

Epic... well... I liked Gears 2, it was a good improvement, but there were issues. Namely, we NEED some dedicated servers. Host advantage is alive and well in the Gears world, according to my friend: and the multiplayer is so unreliable he's given up on it (we're talkin bout a Gears fanatic here). So I honestly don't care much. They MIGHT show a trailer for Gears 3, but to be honest I'm not interested.

I'm confused with what you mean by "have a chance at saving themselves." This sounds like Microsoft is in danger, which they aren't. Sure, if things go bad at E3 it might wind up being a slow year, but hardly a console-killer. It would mean the PS3 could make up for lost ground though.

As I can recall, last year Sony pulled the entertainment card... and had a press conference filled with fluff. Hopefully MS learned from their mistake, and this entertainment announcement has more to do with the mythical ZuneX being developed. It could also mean anything else: hell last year we had those NXE annoucements.

The only company I don't expect to pull anything neat out at E3 is Nintendo. Unless they show something VERY cool, I'm probably going to be disappointed.

 

[bad rider]

Side Note. Not a single one of those games interest me.

The second you said that you immediately lost the argument. Good day sir.

Oh, and you people who whine about the price and the BC need to really shut up. Just plain and simple.

They had to remove BC just to lower the price. So if you want BC, prepare to shell out some money. OR better yet, GET A PS2 WITH IT. Or best yet, use the Ps2 you likely own already!

This is grade school thinking people. You want something. you have to give something else up.

I see you failed to notice I wasn't arguing FOR Microsoft, therefore there was no argument. I stated that no Xbox releases this year interest me either. I wouldnt own either console if I hadn't been gifted an Xbox. Mind you you seem like the kind who would say YOU SHOULD HAVE TRADED IT IN FOR A PS3!!!!!

Ah. Alright then.

BEcause I hate it when someone says every game on [insert console] doesn't interest them and that somehow justifies their bashing of said console.

It's a really bad argument for anti-Sony and anti-MS people, or even anti-Nintendo people.

This is from someone who has never EVER BOUGHT either a Sony or Microsoft console. Before I was GIFTED an Xbox 360 I was considering buying one anyway. I have never ever seen a game exclusive to the PS3 that made me want to buy one. I may consider buying one once I have a job, but it would mainly be for the Blu Ray.

That's fine and well. It still doesn't mean the PS3 lacks games, though. It's just not right for you.

I think that's what alot of people seem to mistake. Not everyone has similar interests in games.

Oh thank god. You make sense! Indigo_Dingo is the main culprit I know of this lack of understanding. I just don't enjoy the range of games offered by the PS3. I personally enjoy Western RPGs (Mass Effect and the like) and Non-Realistic shooters. Could you seriously recommend a PS3 to me?

Demons Soul, Mars, Ratchet and Clank, Resistance. 2 Western RPG's, 2 series of non-realistic shooters. In realistic terms, there is something for everyone. Whereas the 360 doesn't have 2D platformers or vehicular combat.

Er, half the arcade games are 2D, an for vehicular coma theres games e.g lost planet chromehounds.

Thats not what I mean and you know it. Vehicular combat isn't about vehicles being a part of a third person shooter. Its about a car equipped with Machine Guns and a Tesla Coil, driving around pursuing a target, shooting Napalm at it. And if we're pulling in Downloadable gamnes, due to the intense creativity people show in the PsN, the list of genres the 360 doesn't have just tripled. You don't have anything like Flower, Rag Doll Kung Fu, Burn Zombie Burn, Noby Noby Boy, Pixeljunk Eden, or any really good Tower Defence games, among others.

Err don't take my arm off, you mentioned a lack of 2d games all i did was point out that we do have them, having ago at me for not mentoning the PS3's title is a bit aggrsive. I never said the PS3 didn't. Also chromehounds was about giant mechanical robots blowing each others arms off (vehicular combat), lost planet mechs going around beating people up 75% of the time (vehicular combat 75%). But we do have a few car fight car games. e.g full auto (yes the ps3 has them aswell)

Full Auto was a racing game. While it does have weapons, its still about getting from A to B. If its a vehicular combat game, it has to be about blowing up other people with a car, and nothing else. It has to be about getting from A to dancing on the other drivers corpse.

Wait so we are going to narrow down the criteria until it fits your concept. That feels unfair.

 

[nova18]

I think everyone is missing the point.
Sony has 3 consoles selling consistently across the globe.
The PS2 is outselling every other console in under-developed nations.

Sony doesnt give a shit how "pathetic" it may sound, cause their still making money off a console that is nearly a decade old.

Which also is a good reason for people to see the validity of the 10 year promise that Sony has for the PS3. Games are coming out that are constantly pushing the technology of the PS3, games that CANNOT be developed on other consoles (inFamous) because they lack the power to run them. Eventually the PS3 will be the next PS2.


On a seperate note: INDIGO DINGO, I love you, keep fighting the good fight. You obviously love the PS3 as much as I do (or maybe you just like arguing lol).

 

[Xbowhyena]

Sony is a horrible company. I'm a proud owner of many sony devices (DVD players, CD players, TVs, PSP) but they are just a damn stupid company. Look at the psp; drastically more powerful than the DS with so much potential, then it fails horribly. Now people don't even run the official Sony firmware on it (aka M33, I'm one of those people) because it offers so few features compared to other types. The PS3 would've done very well if not for several key mistakes. First off, Blu Ray. Blu Ray is NOT needed for video games.... yet. Most devs are too lazy to make any real use of this format. It just makes it so people expect these amazing graphics for all of the PS3 games, which is why most devs produce for the Xbox 360. Second, it lost PS2 compatibility too quickly. The PS2 is better than the PS3 just because of this reason, 'nuff said there. Third, Price. This goes hand-in-hand with using Blu Ray, the format is currently so damn expensive that it is made almost useless. And with Blu Ray, the PS3 needs all these powerful processors and other incredible internal devices, most of which are only used to full potential in exclusive PS3 games. Short and sweet, the PS3 was too futuristic for it's time. Things will catch on, but I really doubt it will be soon enough to save the PS3. Sony messed up... again... on this thing. I hope Sony can stick it out, they make good products, just they've been moving away from the idea of the 'Playstation' for so long, I don't think we should even count the PS3 as a Video Gaming console anymore.

 

[McBurks]

Well look at in the long run....

KH3 + GOD3 = $$$

 

[tenlong]

LEAVE PS3 ALONE! *sobs* ALL YOU CARE ABOUT is MAKING MONEY OFF OF IT! It's a CONSOLE! It went through an economic recession, it had bad launch titles! *sobs* LEAVE IT ALONE! PLEASE!

hahahah! you need a medal.

 

[scotth266]

Microsofts first party are Rare and Lionhead. And when your first party are best known for being disappointing....

No, both teams have said many times that their games are staying exclusive to the Ps3, to the point where Quantic Dream said the game couldn't work on the 360.

By having a chance at saving themselves, I mean saving face. All parties (except for people like AceDiamond, but we can ignore him because he's an idiot) agree that Sony have an amazing E3 line-up - new IP's, the continuation of old and beloved ones, a Price cut, and HD Trico footage. In order to not look unbelievably lame in comparrison, Both parties need something cool. The Kid Icarus trailer might work for Nintendo, but Microsoft don't have anything.

I'll agree with you regarding Rare, but I forget what Lionhead has made. I never really paid attention to the first-party devs: third party ones are almost always better (save in the case of Nintendo).

And that suggests that they're making a PS3 game for the moment, not that they're abandoning the 360, which is what you were implying. I highly doubt that they would completely drop 360 plans for the future completely.

And I reiterate: that's what E3 is for, to suprise us with news we weren't expecting as well as the stuff we knew was coming. I for one honestly can't wait, especially if any Trico info is announced...

 

[Woe Is You]

No, both teams have said many times that their games are staying exclusive to the Ps3, to the point where Quantic Dream said the game couldn't work on the 360.

By having a chance at saving themselves, I mean saving face. All parties (except for people like AceDiamond, but we can ignore him because he's an idiot) agree that Sony have an amazing E3 line-up - new IP's, the continuation of old and beloved ones, a Price cut, and HD Trico footage. In order to not look unbelievably lame in comparrison, Both parties need something cool. The Kid Icarus trailer might work for Nintendo, but Microsoft don't have anything.

Tecmo really aren't known for keeping their exclusivity deals, are they? And that big list you posted earlier looks impressive until you realize that a good share of those games are games that we know nothing about. Wardevil, Ni-Oh, Quantum Theory, Last Rebellion, MAG (still not getting why this is a big deal, OFP did on less resources) and L.A. Noire are examples of games we've barely know anything about. I admit GOW3 and Heavy Rain interesting and the Trico trailer peaked my interest (it seemed more Icoish less SOTCish, which is nice), but seriously.

As for writing off Microsoft and Nintendo, well... if you remember, MS did similar things last year where the start of the year was extremely slow but after E3, we got a bunch of new interesting titles. Writing them off because we haven't heard anything concrete from them yet is pretty foolish. They've got BigPark, we know Fable 3 is coming, we know Forza 3 is coming and it's not like Epic works on one title at a time. They might surprise since they literally have kept their mouths shut for almost a year now.

Also, as far as AceDiamond's comments go, they're pretty confrontational but at least he doesn't pull shit out of thin air like you occasionally do. I can bring the whole Goldeneye debate as an example, and I can assure you that isn't the only case this has happened.

On topic, though, the PS2 doing so well actually is a good thing for Sony considering they're still taking a hit for every PS3 sold. The PS2 = money for Sony and the PS3? Not so much at current. I guess this is just the proof that the consumer at large doesn't really need a system to replace a HTPC but a system that just plain plays games. The PS2 is the best of the last generation, the Wii is the only console that really tries to show a new direction as far as gaming goes.

 

[bounceback11]

While we all sit here arguing over who is best nintendo is sneaking up on us ready to brutally murder us all!!!

It's funny that we hardcore gamers take sides because we all know that if the wii continues to sell like hot cakes that make your dick bigger both MS and Sony are gonna drop us all on our ass and go after the casual money!!!

Why make mgs5 or gears 3 for like $20 million when you could make mario kart for like $2 million and still sell more copies!!!

Brand loyalty is a waste of time because neither company cares I currently have an xbox 360 which i got given as a gift but if PS3 starts to get the games i'm interested in then i'll happily trade it in for one!

Plus the soylent green guy you rule

EDIT: Apparently MGS4 cost $50 moillion to make!

 

[bad rider]

Whoops didn't mean to post.

 

[Dante18907]

I have the original PS3 (with backwards compatibility) and it was a f*cking expensive machine. What are they now $300-$400? As opposed to $750-$800? Sony CLEARLY explained their exclusion of Backwards Compatibility as well as the exclusion of the extra ports (SD cards etc) which was, to drop the price because people were in fact complaining about it (and I do realise this has been said previously, I just feel some people need it hammered into their heads to get the damn point)

My Wii has full backwards compatability AND SD Card functionality, AND it didn't cost anywhere near what the PS3 did, therefore your argument makes no sense at all. (I'm not a Wii fanboy)

Considering my argument was directed at the futility of the console wars, I would say that it does make shining sense. I would also like to thank you for proving my point.

What the hell are you talking about?
Your point is basically "Sony thought it would be fat too expensive to include BC or extra ports" no it isn't... like I said in my previous post my Wii cost a HELL of a lot less than the PS3 likely ever will and it has BC, so it clearly can't cost that much more, if anything at all. The on.y reason I could ever justify the price of the PS3 would be the bluray capability, but then I'd have to buy Bluray DVDs which are like £30 a piece, and I already have hundreds of regular DVD's that play in a perfectly good enough definition anyway.

As has been said previously. Because of the Blu-Ray format of all PS3 discs and the X format (can't remember off the top of my head) of the PS2 discs. To include BC Sony would have to literally put an entire PS2 disc reader INTO the PS3, whereas the Wii and X360 both use the same format discs.

It helps when you read all previous posts when commenting on something.

 

[Jumplion]

Condense

Maybe it's only possible on PS3 because Sony fucking owns those games? I don't know nor do I care if every PS3 game can work on a 360, if it's owned by Sony, it's mother fucking owned by Sony and therefore cannot be possible on 360 because it's owned by Sony.

And I still want to know, where the hell has Sony ever said that "Text messaging through gaming is a break through!"? And even if they did, so what? It's one step closer to video chat during gameplay, but either way everyone is making a huge deal out of nothing.

If done properly, SixaxiS is a nice addition, but it's an option for the developers to use. I'll agree, sometimes the SixaxiS is shoehorned into a game, but that's just the developers choices to work with them and if they want to more power to them.

And yes, jiggling the controller to make Rose's boobs bounce around was hilarious.

If you can't name 10 good games on the PS3 you're interested, then fine, but that does not mean that the PS3 does not have 10 good games overall. I can name 10 games off the top of my head for the PSP that I want/interested in. I can name 10 games that I'm interested in for the PS3. Unfortunately, that is not the case for the Wii, DS (both of which I own) or 360. That's personal preference, however, so I'm not going to claim that because I can't name 10 games on 360 that I'm interested in (or not on PC) that means that the 360 is a failure of a system.

Where do you get the idea that PSN is a shoddy online service? It's been perfectly fine for me, maybe it hasn't been for you. I don't know, I don't even know if you've used it before. PSN has been perfectly fine for me and I still don't like the idea of paying just to continue playing a game I like even if it does go to service production.

Do not get me started on the RRoD, it is absolutely atrocious that Microsoft allowed this outrageous hardware problem to continue. Now, once is fine, things happen, but the failure rate of the 360 is abso-LUTE bullshit. If my PS3 broke down 3 times on me, I'd move over to 360 because I am their customer and I should not have to deal with my console breaking down on me (and vice versa if I owned a 360). If a drug had a 33% failure rate, it'd be taken off the shelves, or hell, ANY electronic with that failure rate.

(though to be honest, I'd probably be a hypocrite if it did break down and send for it multiple times. My friend has his PS3 with a yellow-light of death or something, though I'm not sure how his experience went)

Now you're just starting to sound a little overzealous about the "downfall" of Sony. You don't sound too much like a fanboy more than you sound like an Anti-Sony bot. Sure, Sony is not innocent of some crimes here, but you tend to blow some situations extremely out of proportion.

Sometimes you just need to calm down and look at it from other perspectives because you have a tenancy to stretch the truth to such a degree that you think that you are stating facts when you're just stating extremely opinionated opinions. I've seen your good side, you don't have to be Indigo's enemy all the time. He does have some valid points at times but they're often brushed aside as fanboy drivel which disappoints me.

 

[HyenaThePirate]

I've said it before and i'll say it again..

Sony handled backwards compatibility with all the delicacy of a date rape.

The thing is, they KNEW they were the #1 console.. but they foolishly thought that fans of the Playstation 2 and their love of shiny graphics = $$$$!

Problem is, the Playstation 2 is STILL a great machine with GREAT titles that werent rushed out to fill the needs of a new system with NO supporting software.

Publishers have gotten GOOD at squeezing out every little drop of awesome power from the PS2 to the point that most PS2 games that come out are better than 360 OR PS3 games IMO. Star Wars Force Unleashed for example. It's a damn crying shame when the PS2 version comes out head and shoulders over the so-called "next gens".

When Sony decided to piss on their fans by removing backwards compatibility (at least a BC that WORKS consistently... emulation still = fail IMO on many GOOD titles), because they didnt want people buying Playstation 2 games instead of PS3 games, I feel they sealed their doom. They underestimated to what lengths the PS2 fan loves his little black box of awesomeness. And with companies like Atlus and Vanillaware still churning out top notch titles that kick the hell out of any current PS3 RPG on the market, I wouldnt exactly expect anyone to go running out to buy one.

Not giving us an HDMI chord to take advantage of it's touted graphical superiority, forcing us to buy a friggin adapter at a ridiculously high price just to transfer our old game saves to the new console, and not giving us the SIMPLE FRIGGIN FUNCTION OF CHANGING THE STUPID STUPID STUPID WHITE TEXT ON THE Main DASHBOARD SO IT DOESNT FADE INTO UNREADABLE OBSCURITY WHENEVER I SET UP MY OWN BLOODY BACKGROUND, were the elements IMO that have Sony sitting at the bottom of the pile with the best little toy nobody could ever want.

 

[Jumplion]

When Sony decided to piss on their fans by removing backwards compatibility (at least a BC that WORKS consistently... emulation still = fail IMO on many GOOD titles), because they didnt want people buying Playstation 2 games instead of PS3 games, I feel they sealed their doom. They underestimated to what lengths the PS2 fan loves his little black box of awesomeness. And with companies like Atlus and Vanillaware still churning out top notch titles that kick the hell out of any current PS3 RPG on the market, I wouldnt exactly expect anyone to go running out to buy one.

I have a small theory as to why Sony cut Backwards Compatibility, but it's just a theory nothing more.

My theory is that Sony wanted to continue selling the PS2 as a successful system. The PS2 is one of the only things that they make money off of right now, and people are still buying it as evidenced to the OP.

Having BC on the PS3 would mean that they are losing sales for the PS2 because people wouldn't buy a PS2 if it had BC in the first place. If they cut out BC for the PS3, then people would continue buying PS2 to play PS2 games.

It's a theory, but it makes sense doesn't it?

 

[HyenaThePirate]

I guess it does, but not good business sense.
The PS2 has more than earned it's fair share of the profits, but meanwhile they are hemorrhaging money with the PS3 to the tune of millions per quarter.
The PS2 might still be selling to beat the band but it I don't think it's doing so well as to SUPPORT it's newer older sister. It would be akin to mac living and dying on the IPOD while their macbooks collect dust on Electronic store shelves.

Realistically, they could be making at least SOME money by giving people a choice. Honestly, once I got my PS3 my PS2 went to a needy family with kids because I have BC (I have a 60 gig). Why do I need a PS2 AND a PS3? Especially if I can still enjoy games like Devil Summoner 2 on my PS3? So then Sony gets my money from the PS3 console AND my money from any PS3 games I buy AND my PS2 games which are cheaper, sure, but still keep me playing the PS3 because for all the exclusives it has, I dont own many PS3 games because they just dont tickle my fancy. My xbox is my system of choice for shooters, but my PS3 is where I want to get caught up in engrossing stories and roleplaying experiences. IMO Folklore and Valkyria Chronicles kick the hell out of MGS4 which was good for a playthrough (a very QUICK one at that) and Little Big Planet (which was mindless fun for a few days and I havent touched it since).

What I want to know is where are all the damned RPG's, what I feel was the PS2's bread and butter.
But I digress...

Sony made a poor decision in the backward compatibility function that will be a source of woe for them well into the 10 year lifespan of this system, although I think Sony once again was being too far reaching in their goal. Technology moves much faster and people expect MORE, faster. In another 3 or so years the next iteration of the Xbox will come out (I believe consoles are now on a 5 year cycle) and just like in the pc world, what's hot today will be woefully out of date tomorrow. In 4 years, the PS3 will no longer be the best console with the most power and the best graphical ability, it'll be the PS2 of the NEXT console generation where it'll sell because of it's cheap price point, but developers will already be looking ahead to better systems with even more power to make even more awesome games.

Sony needs to realize that they dont call the console shots anymore as the "gaming leader" and get back into a mind-frame that they are in a serious competition, wiinner take all.

 

[Carlston]

So, apparently the Playstation 3 has dropped way behind the Xbox 360, Wii, and even the Playstation 2.

Anyways, I thought that was good for a laugh, I mean losing a console war is no shame, but losing the console war to the system you are trying to replace.. Wow.


Source: http://videogames.yahoo.com/events/plugged-in/ps3-bested-by-older-brother/1315218

To me it's the same old make believe if we make enough failure stories it will come true bit.
Mine is still fun and going strong.
But god forbid the 360 crowd goes a day without freaking out and making the 2k posts of how wonderful they got it...

When Sony declares it over and makes a press announcement (and not some made up crap) I'll buy it. Your in a new age of consoles where they want the ps3 to last 10 years, 10... not 3 like the old ones, or 5...10 years.

 

[HyenaThePirate]

As fast as technology moves these days 10 year console cycles are not only poorly conceived they are stupid.

Do you honestly believe in 3-4 years people will be excited about a gaming system made in 2007?

People are so used to new and shiny things... look how fast cell phones come out, movie sequels, tv's, mp3 players... newer, bigger, faster, better.
Planning on a 10 year cycle with current gen technology is like trying to sell the same model of car for 10 years, and you'll get the same result.

They should aim for a 5 year cycle and just modify the system slightly to compensate for exponential leaps in technology. The much touted cell chip for example was fascinating and marvelous technology... in 2005. Now in a world where Quad core pc's are becoming the NORM for the average PC consumer, and where there are 8 core processors available for consumers, the cell chip is a technology that missed it's moment.