What is Sony's Problem?

[D_987]

Sony's problem is that sony lost touch with it's intended audience. It didn't take into consideration how much it's audience was willing to pay, and it released late.

new IP that isn't made for kids... and stuff...*mumble*

Your complaining about Kid friendly IPs with a toy?

Game have become a respected media. Lets place it in simpler terms. Have you ever seen an advert for one of those kids portable media players - thats the Wii. Now a more expensive portable DVD player, thats the PS3 / 360 (I don't think they do portable blu - ray players yet).

Which one of more suitable, for the kids, its probably a cheap product aimed at their target audience.

 

[asinann]

Might help if they would put out a few good games that you can't get on other systems (there's only one I can think of off hand MGS4.)

Need I point you to the advertising they did in I think Ireland for Resistance 2? That was just pure awesome what they did..

So 2 games?

Who's going to pay $400 to play 2 games?

Sony made the same mistake with both the PS3 and the PSP: they made the systems do too many things instead of making them play games. This makes the systems harder and more expensive to develop for.

DVD/Blu Ray players should be a secondary function and of lower quality in Consoles than if you go buy a player off the shelf.

And I can just about guarantee you that if Sony's systems had a version of the RRoD, Sony would have denied it's existence, unlike Microsoft, who took responsibility and extended warranties for that issue an extra three years at no cost to the consumer.

 

[Jumplion]

On another note I'm a bit confused as to why it took so long for people to remember what could now be considered "old news", which is FF XIII not being a PS3 exclusive anymore. Then again it's hard to remember any PS3 exclusives (other than Killzone 2: Because Killzone 1 was such a Halo-Killer, and Little Big Planet: Fun will Overcome Everything but Copyright Law)

At this point when anyone refers to FF XIII moving sony platforms its pretty much assumed they would be referring to Versus, Agito, all three in Japan, and Final Fantasy fans who haven't got a next-gen game yet, and who want the best experience, and not 20 disjointed hours of gaming and switching discs.

Yes because switching a disk is such a horrible travesty. However will I cope with the 30 seconds it takes me to get up and do that? Oh wait I'm not buying FF XIII anyway, so it doesn't affect me. Even if it did I'd hardly consider it such a big deal. Also you left out the variable that is DVD 2.0 technology. Is it being used? No. But that's something to think about. Unlike "Do I need Blu-Ray" because that answer is still no.

Oh come on, are you people still using that "I don't mind switching disks!" argument?

If a game is on 2 or more disks, the second disk might as well be the sequel. There should be no reason why the burden of switching disks, no matter how minor, should be placed on you, the consumer.

I think a game called "Lost Odessy" (can't remember the name exactly) for the 360 came with, what, 4 disks? The casing for it was horrible, they stuffed 3 disks in one case and the 4th disk had a special disk socket to be placed in. This resulted in alot of scratched, missing, and broken disks and people couldn't finish the damn game they payed for. If you lose a disk or scratch it or something you'll have to buy a whole new game just for that one scratched disk. I don't know if the company will give you a replacement, but that's because I never had to have that inconvinience.

Blu-Ray is an advancement in technology, or atleast an advancement in media tech or something. It's stupid to ignore it's potential just because "i'm fine with what I have" and all that other bullshit. These advancements have always been about more space for the developers using them, for any media, (this is one reason why HD-DVD pretty much failed flat on its ass) and then going off for consumer use. Patience is key I guess. It's because of this that most people, like yourself (not intended to offend you or something), don't realize it's potential, and I understand that, but it's much more than "just blu-ray".

If you're "fine with switching disks" then fine, whatever, go and "break immersion" as some hippie equivalent of gamers would say. However, you're being stupid for completely ignoring the potential of Blu-ray just because you're "fine with switching disks". It eases the burden on you, the consumer, and it opens new branches for developers to work with wether it be compressing less data or stuffing more data in.

I'm not saying DVD is dead or any other type of that bullshit, I'm fine with my DVDs and CDs to. But I look to the future, and when something comes along to "replace" Blu-ray, like Rnbw-Beem or something (more realistically, something called "Deep UV" that my dad is working on), I'll welcome it with open arms and move To ThE fUtUrE/

 

[Jumplion]

Might help if they would put out a few good games that you can't get on other systems (there's only one I can think of off hand MGS4.)

Need I point you to the advertising they did in I think Ireland for Resistance 2? That was just pure awesome what they did..

So 2 games?

Who's going to pay $400 to play 2 games?

Sony made the same mistake with both the PS3 and the PSP: they made the systems do too many things instead of making them play games. This makes the systems harder and more expensive to develop for.

DVD/Blu Ray players should be a secondary function and of lower quality in Consoles than if you go buy a player off the shelf.

And I can just about guarantee you that if Sony's systems had a version of the RRoD, Sony would have denied it's existence, unlike Microsoft, who took responsibility and extended warranties for that issue an extra three years at no cost to the consumer.

The games for PSP and PS3 are the exact same case with the DS and Wii actually (with the latter having more shovelware respectively). the PSP and PS3 don't have a very noticable library of games, but if you look into it then it has many good games, while with the Wii and DS it have a lot of shovelware but if you look hard enough then it also has very good games.

Them being harder to work/develop for is both a blessing and curse, in taht there's not to much shovelware but it's still hard to work with.

The PS3 is among one of the cheapest and best Blu-ray players you could get, especially the cheapest. Sure, it's not the best quality, but you definately get what you pay for wether it's for games or blu-ray.

Yeah, their customer service isn't the best >_>; but then again, what customer service is? They do have a tendancy to make dick-moves every now and again, but MS and Nintendo do the same things sometimes and they get away with them. Maybe they use Sony as a cover up! Ofcourse, it all makes sense now!! But, then we get to the "burden on the customer" problem. If MS actually took care of this problem at first, there would have been no need for this whole RROD fiasco. Most playstations are like covered in Retard-proof mystical orb, with a few exceptions of multiple PS2 buyings.

 

[klc0100]

GeoW is meh

Hmm..insulting game widly called Game of the Year, exclusive to the 360...stating his personal opinion as fact...

It appears we have a fanboy on this thread (not suprising)...

It seems half the escapist hates Gears not just fan boys I think its something to do with it being popular.

Might help if they would put out a few good games that you can't get on other systems (there's only one I can think of off hand MGS4.)

MGS4
Resistance 2
Little big planet
Uncharted
Heavanly sword

There are plenty of good PS3 exclusives as there are plenty of good 360 exclusives the PS3 has no good games thing really is fabricated.

Sony made the same mistake with both the PS3 and the PSP: they made the systems do too many things instead of making them play games. This makes the systems harder and more expensive to develop for.

The PSP is actually very easy to work with most of its games are PS2 ports and f both can play Media and have internet browsers yes you can turn your PS3 into a PC but things like that are optional both consoles are made for gaming.

And I can just about guarantee you that if Sony's systems had a version of the RRoD, Sony would have denied it's existence, unlike Microsoft, who took responsibility and extended warranties for that issue an extra three years at no cost to the consumer.

Thats just fanboyish.

 

[ProfessorLayton]

The PS3 has a better library of exclusives than the X360. Europeans and the Japanese have realised this.

Woah, don't go there. Of course there are wonderful exclusives, such as MGS4 (which I really want) and LBP, but thee 360 also has great exclusives!

Also, this has nothing to do with the initial topic, and honestly, that's a little fanboyish.

I realize that the Blu-Ray is expensive technology, but does it have to be? I don't really see that much of a difference between DVD and Blu-Ray. The hardware is very heavy, but still, for what you're getting, it's much too expensive.

 

[Jumplion]

I realize that the Blu-Ray is expensive technology, but does it have to be? I don't really see that much of a difference between DVD and Blu-Ray. The hardware is very heavy, but still, for what you're getting, it's much too expensive.

But this is exactly what was happening when DVDs were replacing VHSs (I think, correct me if I'm wrong).

It's always "It's to expensive" and "I don't see a difference" and all that stuff. Like I said, it's for the developers first, and then for the consumer. History repeats itself, and the same things are being said.

Blu-ray is an expensive technology, but obviously as tech moves forward they will become cheaper and more practical to use.

 

[ProfessorLayton]

But this is exactly what was happening when DVDs were replacing VHSs (I think, correct me if I'm wrong).

It's always "It's to expensive" and "I don't see a difference" and all that stuff. Like I said, it's for the developers first, and then for the consumer. History repeats itself, and the same things are being said.

Blu-ray is an expensive technology, but obviously as tech moves forward they will become cheaper and more practical to use.

When there's a jump from something like VHS to DVD, that's a pretty big and dramatic jump. When its a jump from a disc to a slightly higher quality disc, it's not that much. See, DVD offered so much that a VHS couldn't, such as a menu screen and pausing and fast forwarding easier and stuff.

 

[Jumplion]

But this is exactly what was happening when DVDs were replacing VHSs (I think, correct me if I'm wrong).

It's always "It's to expensive" and "I don't see a difference" and all that stuff. Like I said, it's for the developers first, and then for the consumer. History repeats itself, and the same things are being said.

Blu-ray is an expensive technology, but obviously as tech moves forward they will become cheaper and more practical to use.

When there's a jump from something like VHS to DVD, that's a pretty big and dramatic jump. When its a jump from a disc to a slightly higher quality disc, it's not that much. See, DVD offered so much that a VHS couldn't, such as a menu screen and pausing and fast forwarding easier and stuff.

Nonetheless, the same things were being said. Not many people saw the difference between VHS and DVD, and like I said before Blu-ray is much more than you people are putting out to be. It's always the race for more space (whoa! THat was completely by accident!) and it's always the developers first, customers a little later.

I'll assume you were the "new" generation at that time (equivalent to my generation right now), but if you arn't then ignore this. You weren't born with VHSs (again, I'm assuming with you) so you're open to new things. DVDs looked the the "cool thing on the block" back then and people hate change. You could see the possibilities, but the people the generation before you did not see the huge signifigance of DVDs compared to VHSs.
They were "fine with what I have" they didn't "see the difference" they didn't "care about some stupid new format", it's all the same thing.

Blu-ray is an advancement, it's the same thing back in VHS/DVD times, and something will come and replace Blu-ray and the same thing will happen.

 

[ProfessorLayton]

Blu-ray is an advancement, it's the same thing back in VHS/DVD times, and something will come and replace Blu-ray and the same thing will happen.

In what ways is it an advancement?

It is hard for me to say that I don't know much about "new technology", because I'm more tech-savvy than most people I know. BUT by me asking that brings up an argument that I made earlier for the other side. Obviously, advertising hasn't been on the Blu-Ray's side because all I know about it is that it's a fancy DVD.

 

[Digikid]

What is Sony's problem......... everything.

Agreed. Once Sony starts LISTENING to their customers then MAYBE...just MAYBE they can become a DECENT company.

That is a far stretch though.

 

[ProfessorLayton]

The X360 also has great exclusives, you are quite right. But I said the PS3 has a better library of exclusives. I don't think it's fanboyish to express an opinion in either direction... unless you want everyone to say that each library of exclusives is exactly equal in terms of quality and variety. Personally I think the PS3 wins in quality and variety, if not quantity.

Well, I can see where you're coming from there, and I will admit that I was being a little hateful. The PS3 has good exclusives and way better graphics. I was just saying that for what you're paying for, which is a video game console, it is a little expensive for my taste.

 

[ProfessorLayton]

What is Sony's problem......... everything.

Agreed. Once Sony starts LISTENING to their customers then MAYBE...just MAYBE they can become a DECENT company.

That is a far stretch though.

For any company to be decent, they should be at least a little open in what ideas their fans/haters have. They just seem kind of... stuck up and greedy.

 

[Digikid]

Agreed. Sony ARE a bunch of stuck up snobs.

 

[Gormers1]

In norway, it seems like ps3 is the shit, but maybe its because I favor the 360 that I think so. Most of those I know who have ps3 have it to play mainly soccer games, and incidentally, you always see the ps3 logo on soccer stadiums

 

[Woe Is You]

Oh come on, are you people still using that "I don't mind switching disks!" argument?

If a game is on 2 or more disks, the second disk might as well be the sequel. There should be no reason why the burden of switching disks, no matter how minor, should be placed on you, the consumer.

Because some really don't mind switching discs?

One might argue that burden of installing shouldn't be placed on the consumer: after all, the Wii doesn't have installs. In addition, the DS has little to no load times either. Games today have actually taken steps back here...it used to be that a console game would boot up instantly with no loads or installs. What happened to those days? Not everything done in the name of advancement is a good thing.

With games like Lost Odyssey, switching discs really isn't a problem since it's process that takes maybe a couple seconds and once every 10-12 hours, maybe. You don't switch discs back and forth while moving around the map. Taking a couple seconds to switch the disc really isn't any more of a nuisance than waiting for the game to install a chapter to the HDD.

I'd have this problem if it was anything like the first Baldur's Gate, where you switch between different discs when going to different parts of the world. Going to Nashkell? Switch to disc 2. Going to a forest nearby? Switch to disc 3. Going to Baldur's Gate? Switch to disc 5. Going to the expansion areas? Switch to disc 6!

If it were anything like the example above, multiple discs would be a problem. But they aren't. And while a Blu-ray game on a single disc is slightly more convenient, it's not a convenience that I'd pay 150EUR more for if the game is the same. Which is the case with PS3 and 360 games for the most part.