RF Generation Message Board

Well we all know The Maligned Samurai-san Leon stance on Sony but what do you rally think?

Have they in the last 10 years or so really helped the image of games and the people that play them bringing them centre stage getting rid of the bad image changing them into a legitimate media like film or television?

OR


Have they single handedly destroyed all the was innovative and diffrent by producing consoles that are nothing but high powered underused graphics chuckers with an endless stream of unimaginative and unexciting sequels shoved at you as the next big thing?

Damn it phoenix look what you've done.

I thought I made my views clear awhile ago.

I'm not truly a Sony fanboy. I mean there's absolutely a zero percent chance that I will buy myself a PS3 in probably the next three years. But I just can't stand the unfounded anti-Sony mentality I see here. So I will fight the good fight for it. Sony has provided me with hundreds, if not thousands, of hours of entertainment on its systems. I'm not going to turn against them because they're the big guy and I'm not going to turn against them because they make an expensive system.

Unimaginative? Riiiiiiiight, what about Katamari? Kingdom Hearts? Guitar Hero? The list can go on for as long as you like? This is an invalid argument. M$ has a much less imaginative repertoire of games than Sony. It seems to me that Nintendo is all quirky weird, M$ is square, and Sony is somewhere in the middle.

People also complain about pretty graphics, I say hey, if they make em, use em. You can't tell me there's something wrong with eye candy. I you think there's something wrong with eye candy that's a personal preference.

Likewise in "helping the image of games" I don't know if Sony has helped or not. They've sold a hell of a lot of them though.

As for a legitimite media, I personally like this view. I would much rather be in my story than just watching a story. My games feeling cinematic doesn't bother me. Some people would rather play Tetris, others will want to play games as cinematic as MGS 3. Again it's personal preference.

Oh yeah and LONG LIVE TEH SONY EMPIRE!!!!

[img width=200 height=275]http://www.gogela.com/blog/images/2006/sony1.jpg[/img]

Nice rebuttal Leon  :D

I think there are allot more Sony fans here and everywhere than Microsoft or Nintendo ones, and not because I see sales figures or fanboy wars, but because of many of the reasons Leon gave. And like he said, Sony is very much the middle man offering a selection of innovation, hardcore and casual games that make it quite frankly an all around good system of choice for anyone.


Since the question was asked I'll give my honest answer. Neither the PS1 or the PS2 are "high powered underused graphics chuckers" in fact in comparison to their rivals quite the opposite, and the PS3 hasn't proven whether it's superior to the 360 or not so who can really judge?

What game/system offers innovation like Guitar Hero does? or peripherals for games like, steering wheels, flight sticks, arcade sticks, etc etc.? I own both a PS2 and a Xbox/Xbox 360 for completely different reasons, they each give me something the other doesn't.

I don't think anyone on this board is a hardcore fanboy of anything in particular, sure we all have our preferences but we wouldn't be here on a gaming collecting board if we didn't enjoy or if we deprived ourselves of, what the other systems offered us.

Most of the "anti-Sony fanboyism" comes from longtime fans of classic Nintendo systems who feel Sony has robbed gaming of something. But they always forget that Nintendo itself was the one who unleashed the Sony beast, and they were the ones unable to counter it with a better product selling product for 10 years in a row.

Sony is arrogant, dubious hardware maker, sometimes a imitator as well, but they have introduced us to backwards compatibility, several memorable franchises in many genres, and brought gaming to a worldwide audience and mainstream media. And for that they deserve a fair chance to succeed or fail without judgement prior to release, much like what everyone has argued about the Wii and 360.

Both excellent answers, my point was in not for nor against Sony on anything they do there a company like all others whos job it is to make money, I was trying to put both types of argument forward to see what people thought.

One thing i do feel though is that Playstations have by some always been touted as the consoles with the best games/graphics/story (delete as needed) when really it does not matter what system the game is on its gameplay that counts over everything else

sony started the game in the mid 90s with lots of new ideas that worked so well for them, that theyve refused to do anything original since then.  'stay the course' hasnt worked for republicans, and it likely wont last forever with sony

innovative games like guitar hero and katamari are third party creations, and in this day and age where third parties are squeezed more and more by sony to cover their hardware losses, third parties will have to take even fewer risks than they are now (read: not very many)

my saltiness toward sony comes mostly how they handled the PS2 launch and beat sega into the ground with hype, most of which was never delivered.  Now that sega is a bland third party that has come up with virtually nothing since the dreamcast days (the only great original sega title has been feel the magic on the DS), i am less bitter.  but from an analytical view, arrogance has toppled every leader in the breif history of this industry (atari, nintendo, sega), and there is little reason to believe that it wont happen again with sony

Guitar Hero will be coming out on 360 eventually.

PS2 was not a graphics machine i comparison to Xbox and GCN.

PS2 does have the largest selection of varying games, good, bad, awesome, quirky, shitty etc etc.

Get Sony for first party games.
Get Xbox for First party and multisystem games.
Get Nintendo for first party games.

Though as already stated we have yet to see the power of the PS3 or Wii yet for those statements to nesecarilly hold true.

Oh and don't say no one here is a fanboy either.
Many of us are and don't really admit it. Be it to ourselves or others ;)

this is one of the things i do hate though the PS2 was hyped as a great graphics before it came out and yes its definitely the weakest of that age machine (dreamcast excluded) but the same thing is happening now with the PS3 and you know far too few companies will uses all that "power"

Some 3rd party games are the true stars of a console but has been said few can afford to be made as they dont sell as well as generic "safe" games do thus this leads to stagnation of ideas.

Well you can't blame a company for wanting to make money over losing money. I suppose the truth is we [medieval chanting] "True Gamers"[/medieval chanting] are not the majority of all gamers. For some reason the casual gamer public would rather buy the same football game for like twenty years in a row than buy an original game where you do something dfferent, like roll up balls of crap. The companies are going to try and make money by doing what the majority doesn't mind. They aren't going to try and please a minority of us by marketing games that are less likely to succeed. (I know, Nintendo is, we'll see how it goes.

Mainly, for this Generation, I feel like PS3 will be the most advanced system. Both M$ and the Wii machine don't seem to be advancing to the next generation rather than they are expanding on the old one. PS3 is using tons of new tech, is making sure it has great graphics abilities and, as we all know, doubles as a grill

[img width=283 height=236]http://gtpod.palgn.com.au/images/ken%20grill.jpg[/img]

I cannot speak much to the PS1 outside of the fact that Sony and Sega had enough innovative prowess to bring the gaming world to disk instead of cartridge (N64 being the last). I'm still learning about the games of that generation so that's all I have to say about them.

PS2 took Sony a step further and into its dominant role in the industry due to it's release being 1 year earlier than Xbox and GC and the fact that it could play DVDs, an industry first. This is where Sony was smart, they didn't attempt to force a proprietary hardware device on the public. Instead, they acknowledged the current standard, provided it to the people, and let them choose. And it did so at a reasonable overall price for a console.

Sony has put out a strong selection of titles on the PS2, innovative enough and include God of War, Ico, Shadow of the Colossus, Katamari Damacy, among others. GameCube has Metroid Prime, was the first to Resident Evil 4, and has the Mario brand name. Microsoft has KOTOR, Halo 1 and 2, Far Cry, Ninja Gaiden, and others as well as the best crossplatform versions of current gen games. To say that Sony or any company stifles innovation may be a stretch. However, in order to compete in this current gen, Sony will need to embrace it more since competition with Nintendo and Microsoft will be much more heated than ever before due to Nintendo's innovation in game controller technology and Microsoft's online marketplace & XBLArcade strategy.

To say that Sony has brought legitimacy to the gaming industry as an entertainment medium is an interesting take, but I would give the credit to the current gen of game consoles and companies as a whole for making this happen. When PS1, Dreamcast, and N64 were around, only Sony's company name brand was known outside of gaming. Adding Microsoft's name to the picture in the current gen with Sony imo makes the rest of the world take notice since now 2 of the largest corporations in the world are on board with gaming consoles instead of just 1. In the marketing machine of everyday life, the public is then exposed more frequently to the idea of putting their entertainment dollars into the current generation of games. And that is what has brought it to legitimacy and acceptance. 

The bad that I see Sony doing is obvious. And every gaming industry employee that I've discussed this with agrees...when Sony forces a proprietary hardware device at the consumer, the results are not good. Sony's decision to force gamers into Blu-Ray is one that has shown that since E3, Sony's arrogance is starting to get the best of them. I agree with chrisbid on this point about arrogant companies and their respective downfalls.

Sony had respected the consumer with the PS1 and PS2 by choosing to use the industry standards (DVD) to maximize the potential of their product. And it paid off. Now, they've decided it was time to force another proprietary hardware device at the public with the Blu-Ray player in the PS3...and I hope it backfires in their faces. Does that make me a Sony hater? No. It would piss me off no matter what the company is. Because it takes the decision out of the hands of the consumer and into the corporation's control. Sony: "We are Sony...you will buy a PS3 with a Blu-Ray player because we say so." Consumer: "Oh. Ok. I guess I will buy a PS3 with a Blu-Ray player for $600 even though I don't have a HD television and do have a DVD player with a whole collection of standard DVDs".

Betamax. UMD. Now Blu-Ray. Sony's mocking the consumer. And that's what pisses me off more than anything.

I have mixed feeling about Sony in general.  Out of all of the last generation machines, I like the PS2 more than the XBox or Gamecube, but Sony has the most obvious money hungry corporate philosophy out of all three.

Let me expand a bit here.  The sheer number of excellent games on the PS2 is overwhelming.  Even the bad games have some measure of respectibility on them.  Case in point is Project EDEN.  It's an overall bland and repetitive game, but I still can't call it horrible.  Granted I haven't played half of my PS2 collection, but I have never run into a game that was just completely unplayable.

As for Sony's corporate philosophy, they make no qualms that they are just trying to make money and don't try to hide it.  I know that Microsoft and Nintendo are both in it to make money as well, but they don't come right out and tell it to the world.  I like to be lied to every once in a while and believe that the game manufacturers are in buisness strictly for their love of the product.  Is there anything inherently wrong with trying to make as much money as possible?  No.  That's what communism is for.  Go America.  But it's still nice to at least have the option to look at things with rose colored glasses.

I also believe that if it weren't for Sony, games would still be a niche form of entertainment.  The one thing about Sony is their marketing department is used to appealing to the general pubic, where as Microsoft and Nintendo both go after a smaller demographic.  I know what your thinking "but Microsoft sells computers and other stuff like that".  While it's true they do, they are also pretty much the only game in town for operating systems for the regular folks.  They don't really have to advertise and they would still pull in 1 billion plus a year.  Sony was the only company that had the ability to truly make video games "sort of cool".  Whether that's a good thing or not is up for discussion.

I don't think Sony is very innovative (that's all Nintendo.  Donkey Konga for the win!!!), but they do the status quo, VERY well.  I'm could explain myself further here, but I'm done typing.

So does the Xbox 360!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=oLabckoPC0g

Yeah, but only because it sucks.

*yawn*...what's that? Oh, just Leon making a Sony Fanboy sandwich...again. *yawn*

I think of sony as being one of the more key factors in what's bad in gaming these days, but that's not because I think they are the most evil thing to happen to gaming.  The biggest problems I've had with them is their lack of inovation, their lack of originality, and their continual lie machine add campaigns.  I do have a problem with a good number of their fans, but I cant hold them responsible for the saying and actions of a number of misguided cult followers.  Yes, I said cult.  Some Sony fanboys treat it like it's the second coming of Jesus, the birth of a new Budda, or a visit from the gods on planet x25y8.

They lack inovation.  Inovation changes how people percieve gaming, inovation changes how it's played, inovation changes how people go about playing other people, and sometimes even what's being played in the first place.  So far Sony has done little to change any of that.  They have followed the beaten path and done little beyond that.  Their third party games on the other hand have often been quite a different story.  What with games from Namco like Katamari, games from Konami like Lifeline, capcom and Okami, we have seen how original the third party companies can and will be.  From Sony we see games like Ico, God of War, and Shadow of the Closus.  Great games, but so few and far between.

It makes me laugh when people claim how Sony brought about backwards compatability first with the PS1/PS2.  It realy does show you how young the current gaming generation is.  I mean, no one ever heard of the master system converter which oddly enough allowed you to play master system games on a genesis.  Also, one for the gamegear as well!  Funny, but that wasnt a first either as I remember.  Something about 2600, 5200, and some other Atari system being played all together.  I forget, maybe someone can remind me.

You can call me a fanboy, but I'd realy like to know what of.  As far as systems, I perfered the x-box for it's hardware.  The ability to rip my CD collection to it's hard drive was something I realy enjoyed.  I also loved how I didnt need more and more memory cards.  There just wasnt enough third party support for it.  I also enjoyed the Dreamcast as it had a great number of inovative ideas for a system.  Built in modemn, memory cards with an actual screen (something the ps1 had as well yet sony decided to not release outside of japan for various reasons).  I enjoyed the SNES because its graphics were nice, same for the nes.  Loved the 2600 because at the time it was basicly the only game in town aside from the arcades which were gobling quarters by the handfull.  Looking back, how the hell did any of us afford to visit arcades?  We must have been more well off then we are now.

the 7800 was backwards compatible with the 2600, but the 7800 was released after the NES had hit the market... too little too late for atari, though some of the later 2600 titles were really impressive


there was a day and age, when virtually all games were just a quarter to play.  machines that charged 50 cents were few and far between.  I think the first 50 cent game i played was Dragons Lair, then you had the custom sega cabs like Hang On and and Outrun, but as the arcades died, the prices went up to recoup the costs quicker, and it continued to spiral out of control.  the arcades did make a bit of a comeback with Street Fighter II and other fighters.

Average age of gamers is 33 and the fact is the 7800 and the PBC for the Genesis are minor footnotes in gaming nothing more. Getting nitpicky about "who done what first" will get nobody no where. nothing about the new systems is innovative even the wii-mote. It's not so much about who got their first as much as who done it better. No doubt Nintendo will make the motion sensor tech work better than anyone else just as backwards compatibility will be measured against the PS1/PS2. Even Sony is a victim of their own standards in that regard, 200 of 8000 games have issues and all of a sudden it's a failure. N64 games on virtual console have no rumble, and pretty much half or better of the best Xbox1 games still don't work on the 360.
The PS2 has had allot of issues in it's lifetime but never let it be said they didn't raise the bar, most of us who've been there since the 2600 days never seen or heard of the Power Base Converter until later on or played much with the 7800, so you can't say they introduced it if few actually knew about it. Otherwise we should be thanking companies like Microsoft for old products like the Freestyle Pro, or the Atari 5200 adapter for 2600 games. :P

or the coleco and intellivision adapters that allowed you to play 2600 games

As a man who has nearly 500 PS2 games, the reasons for having so many is easy.  My system sees approximately twice as many releases per month than the other guys.  My system commands twice the shelving space of the other too competitors, meaning more variety to spend my hard earned cash on.  Tons of people love and buy Sony's games, therefor the aftermarket (used games) are abundant (Average $$$ I spend per title at my local pawn shop for a used PS2 game = $7).  I can also play EVERY genre out on the market and even have a selection when I chose to play that genre.  

I'm by no means a Sony only guy (although anyone who doesn't express a distaste for Sony nowdays is immediately coined a "fanboy"), but lets face it I (and many of you) LOVE VARIETY in games, and Sony and their 3rd party support delivers it to me.  

Sony's tactics for selling and marketing their consoles are no more sinister than any other company that came before them.  Would we really like to go back to Nintendo's precedent of 5 titles per publisher per year?  It's foolish to hate the #1 videogame console just because its on top at the moment.

Well said shoes23. I really don't think there are many fanboys on this site, and that's what makes it one of the best and most mature for good reading.

There's a big difference between a fan and a fanboy. A fan will defend his system and debate the finer points but shake hands, laugh and walk away without any grudges. A fanboy is someone who attacks without reason, doesn't listen to logic or common sense and generally has nothing to contribute to a topic of discussion.

Thankfully there aren't any of those on this forum, which makes it a safe haven for people who find forums like IGN or Gamefaqs lacking.

Less "teh suxxorz" and more "l33t" 8)

 

 ;D ;D ;D

It's all phoenix's fault.

Yes, well said shoes.

I hate Sony, and think it's funny how Sony is getting pissed by the damage Microsoft has done to their sales even though Microsoft is just playing at Sony's game. But I don't like Microsoft either, so my perfect resolution would be if the two kamikazed.

But I DO have my reasons for hating Sony (I'll just keep it to Sony as that's the topic here)
* Sony Ericsson T105 died without reason
* Sony Ericsson J200i died without reason
* Sony Hi-Fi system, radio stations don't save. Power button collapsed, and sound keeps cutting out one speaker.
* Slim PS2 overheats, solution by external power supply available separately.
* 10 million faulty laptop batteries Sony supplied to several manufacturers.
* Betamax, Minidisc, Memorystick, SACD, UMD and BluRay
* They killed  Lik-Sang.com
* Playstation games would stutter and freeze, audio would skip. It was the 1st system you had to turn upside-down to make sure it worked.  I can't remember the overall percentage, but I think it was something like 10% of all PSXs by the end of it's production suffered from shitty hardware problems like this... and that's a lot if you think about how many PSXs they made.
* I never saw the end to Wild Arms because my PS froze after I beat the final boss!!
*Sony Music CDs contain spyware!

Especially the ego, this is what Sony Europe even had to say about the PS3

But what really made me hate them to start is their bullshit vs the Saturn. The Saturn can only do 2D graphics? Then it can apparently do what was seen in Daytona USA. Yep that's the max polygons it can push, ignore the fact it's one of the systems 1st releases, and was already out when Sony was claiming the Saturn could only do 2D. Sony loved the way they had a respected name, and whatever bs they could spin any one who didn't know better believed it. The truth of the matter is, the Playstation was easy enough for a monkey to program for it, with most stuff built in ready to just be switched on like  compressed audio, light sourcing, and video codecs. This is also the reason for some godawful games that appeared on the PS, since it was now easy enough for some people who should never of made a game to make a game. While the Saturn was still more complex to program for, however the Saturn was in fact the more powerful of the two despite Sony's false advertisements and interviews. The Saturn had more RAM witch could also be expanded further,  twin CPUs of 28.6MHz compared to the PS's one 33.8MHz, a more video RAM, a far superior sound processor, as well as the Saturn being able to achieve resolutions higher than that of what the PS could do. Sony sure loved to flash their fat wallet around though, and would pay of developers not only to make games exclusively for their system, but to also claim it's because the Saturn couldn't handle it.

And last but not least, Sony killed 2D gaming the bastards. The Playstation they put so much effort into making the No.1 seller had no 2D capabilities whatsoever. Sony's goal was to eliminate 2D and force all developers to make 3D games. Even top level PC video cards by nVIDIA & ATi today are capable of both 2D and 3D, but there was no room for 2D in Sony's world. But your probably thinking you remember 2D games on the PS though. They were actually 3D, with flat polygons textured. Think of it as Parappa the Rapper if he never rotated from his front view. This made it extra hard for those who were dedicated to 2D, especially since 3D was so limited at this time, the number of colours that could be on any one texture being far less than a 2D sprite could of used with 2D graphics by now having finally reached it's true potential with stunningly beautiful graphics possible like that seen in games like Astal.

So yeah, I have my reasons for hating Sony. Although once upon a time prior to all of this, it was a brand name I trusted instead of avoided. I use to love buying their recordable tapes.

That's probably the best definition of a fan vs. a fanboy that I've read. Thanks Tan.


Me!?!? What?  :o

You've driven me to fanboyism, I was once a simple protector, but now you've turned me into a Sony Crusader. (I still don't really want a PS3)

Psycho Fox i think you might be a bit wrong with the thing that the PSX cant do 2D have you not seen Castlevania on it theres only a few tiny 3D sprites in it the rest is flat.


I do agree with you on the whole 2D killing thing though, Sony, Sega and Nintendo seamed to want all new game in 3D back then, So much so that some people would see a 2D game and laugh calling it shit even though it might have been excellent, i think that is why the Gameboy Advance had such a tiny life span as it was nearly all flat, The thing it a game can be good and look even better in 2D just some people will never even try them and i think its all companies fault that that has now come the case.


(yes i know that they still do make games for the GBA but really that are only crappy titles not the Mario, Zelda and the like of a few years ago.)

I'd like to say that innovation is more than having a good idea, it's also a matter of executing that idea in a good way. It's not who does it first, it's who does it best. Sure, you could play master system games on the genesis, but you'd have to buy this chunky thing you had to jam on top of your genesis. They playstation 2 had backwards compatibility right out of the box and it even enhanced the playstation 1 games! THAT's real innovation.

Another sony example is the memory card. The Saturn had one, and I'm sure other consoles had one before. But none of them worked as wel as sony's. The ease of the whole thing was very innovative. I just worked so damn good.

Let's compare the gaming libraries of the Saturn, Playstation and Nintendo 64. The Saturn and Nintendo 64 both had their great games, but not to the extent of the Playstation.
I've had nearly all Saturn games and most of them play like they're from an entirely different generation. Sure, I love some of the saturn games (sega rally!!!), but for nearly every good Saturn game, there are 10 better Playstation games.
The games for the Nintendo 64 were, overall, so much the same, that the public felt the console only catered to children. I won't go into the discussion wether it's justified, but if a majority of the people considers you a play toy for kids, you've surely done something wrong in the gaming department. Where is the Nintendo Metal Gear Solid? Or DDR? Or Vib Ribbon? Or Gran Turismo? etc. The playstation had a much more diverse gaming library.

The playstation was so great and had such an impact, that the playstation 2 was a winner from the start. Sega and Nintendo had been dissapointing with their previous consoles and Microsoft was completely new. Sony had build up a lot of credit and deserved to start ahead.

I agree Sony lost a lot of their edge with the Playstation 2 and that the Dreamcast and XBOX were in many cases more innovative, but Sony hadn't completely lost it. If you don't find the playstation 2 innovative and original, how can you find the XBOX or gamecube innovative and original? All three of them have their strong and weak points, but the huge amount and diversity of games released for the playstation 2 is enough to call it innovative and original. I don't want to bash Nintendo or Microsoft, but the gamecube's best selling games were all 20 year old franchises and the XBOX's best selling games were the 2 halos and ports. (according to wikipedia)

Of course, the Playstation 2 is less innovative and original than the pc or the Atari 2600, but it isn't fair to compare it to these 2 systems. Saying the playstation 2 isn't innovative is saying all modern gaming isn't innovative and original. And if you think that way, I wonder why you're even on this board.

I somewhat understand people disliking a company for the way it acts, but I cannot possibly understand people disliking either the playstation or playstation 2 for what they are. You must really hate games if you think that way, because they gave the gaming community more good games since 1995 than Nintendo, Sega and Microsoft combined.

I also believe that people who claim that Sony killed gaming and isn't innovative wish the world hadn't changed since 1993 and developers would still churn out 2D games for the SNES and Genesis. Yeah, that would be mighty innovative and really push gaming forward. Saying sony killed 2D gaming must be one of the more pathetic arguments one could say on this issue.

Actually you can look it up if you want, while Castlevania was a great 2D game it had to use a 3D engine just like the rest. This is actually the best game you could of pointed out as proof of this. As unfortunately while the Saturn was a 2D powerhouse, the port of Castlevania suffered somewhat  from slowdown in parts. Dracula X as it is called on the Saturn could of been a much better port even had it actually been true 2D game. However, the core of the game is a straight port of the 2D-3D original.


I have to disagree with the Playstation memory cards being  better than the Saturn's as I have over 100 Saturn games saved on one cart, something a PS memory card is no where near capable of. However the PS Memory card is very small, and portable, so I'll give ya half a win there. ::)

As far as Sony killing 2D games, I like this guys views
http://egoraptor.webmoron.net/videogames/index.php?subaction=showfull&id=1157968373&archive=&start_from=&ucat=&

I think 'this guy' is completely out of his mind.

He first says:

And then he says:


Oh yes! Those games surely are the pinnacle of new and innovative! Seriously though, this guy is terribly prejudiced towards 2D games and lives in a fantasy world. He wants the exact same games we've had for the last 20 years, but only slightly prettier.

But there's more!
It seems like this guy is stuck in 1996.

I hate Sony because of their arrogance. Also because the PS2 broke so much. Also I think all TV's and stereos are over priced. I also hate the fact they are forcing Blu-Ray onto the consumer.

i think Tynstar does have a good point Sony products so seam to be higher priced than other makes and have a perceived better quality weather they have or not.


i dont know how Arrrhalomynn can say that the PS2 is innovative does it have a HDD as standard? Could or would it have gone on the internet if others had not done it first?

They can be innovative the Duel Shock was very clever to have 2 analogue sticks but there memory cards were too small (memory wise) and too expensive plus they never released the Pocketstation outside of Arrrhalomynn
Japan.

LOL Pocketstation made after they had seen a Sega VMS, the Duel Shock has a motion sensor after the Wii, its things like this and the arrogance that make people hate Sony not the products nobody said the console was bad just the company.

I 100% agree and have been stating that as well. It takes the decision whether or not they want a Blu-Ray player out of the consumer's hands and into the corporation's. Why should the consumer be forced to pay a higher price for a hardware opti/n that they don't want/need?

I have a pretty hard time decyphering your post, but the point of my little story was that the PS2 wasn't less innovative than the XBOX or gamecube.


They need SOMETHING to put their games on. First it was CD, then it was DVD, now it's Blu-Ray. It's called progress. Did you also feel forced to pay for DVD or CD? Or formats that didn't have any other functions like the dreamcast's CD-G and all the different types of cartridges of the old days?

I think it's pretty neat that the ps3 comes with an extra function for a relatively low price, when compared to a stand alone system with the same function. It might have been 50 bucks cheaper if it had used regular DVD, but that's in the past now and a custom drive would've cost just as much and wouldn't have had any extra functionality. I wish my 360 had HD DVD already built in, it would be a neat extra and could be very usefull for future games.

………………..,-~*'`¯lllllll`*~,
…………..,-~*`lllllllllllllllllllllllllll¯`*-,
………,-~*llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll*-,
……,-*llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll.\
….;*`lllllllllllllllllllllllllll,-~*~-,llllllllllllllllllll\
…..\lllllllllllllllllllllllllll/………\;;;;llllllllllll,-`~-,
…...\lllllllllllllllllllll,-*………..`~-~-,…(.(¯`*,`,
…….\llllllllllll,-~*…………………)_-\..*`*;..)
……..\,-*`¯,*`)…………,-~*`~.………….../
……...|/.../…/~,…...-~*,-~*`;……………./.\
……../.../…/…/..,-,..*~,.`*~*…………….*...\
…….|.../…/…/.*`...\...……………………)….)¯`~,
…….|./…/…./…….)……,.)`*~-,……….../….|..)…`~-,
……/./.../…,*`-,…..`-,…*`….,---…...\…./…../..|……...¯```*~-
…...(……….)`*~-,….`*`.,-~*.,-*……|…/.…/…/…………\
…….*-,…….`*-,...`~,..``.,,,-*……….|.,*...,*…|…...\
……….*,………`-,…)-,…………..,-*`...,-*….(`-,………


(Thanks for that Creso)

When CD and DVD are the industry standard, I actually did not feel "forced" to pay for them. And that's my point, Sony didn't have to use Blu-Ray; so by them doing so I feel that they are "forcing" the consumer to buy into it.

DVD is STILL the industry standard. Both Nintendo and Microsoft are still using it in their next gen consoles, and to great effect. And back when the PS2 came out, Sony actually followed the industry standard that had been proven and in place by using the DVD medium, and to their great success. So why didn't they use a proprietary technology for the PS2? Quick answer: Sony hadn't created one that THEY wanted to be universally accepted. So for the PS3, they've made the command decision to go forward with putting their Blu-Ray drive into the system because that's what THEY want to see succeed because it's their designed medium, and not because they couldn't have used DVD in creating the PS3.  

Further, the PS3 would have been more like $200 cheaper if it had used regular DVD. Not $50.

Sony actually also knows that a miniscule amount of households have TVs capable of outputting at the 1080p resolution of the Blu-Ray, but Sony doesn't care. So guess what, the majority of consumers of the PS3 are going to be going home, plugging into their TVs with the PS3's composite video cable, and will find out that there's nothing special about the graphical capabilities of the PS3...because of the cable (since Sony's not even including component or HDMI cables) and because of their TV!

The decision to go with Blu-Ray was simply one of corporate greed and arrogance, imo. And gives no thought or care to the consumer. You can argue all you want about progress, but at $600+ you can have it. I'll stick with my 360 and DVD. And if I'm interested enough in a HDDVD playback, I'll pick up the 360 HD-DVD player or a different brand for use directly to my current TV since I'm not going to be buying a 1080p-capable TV.

A good point, it may be that the world isn't yet ready for the PS3. But this further illustrates what I believe, that the PS3 is the ONLY true next-gen system. It is almost completely out of the water compared to the last generation, whereas the Wii and 360 seem to be little more than "expansion packs," if you will, of the last generation.

There are a fair amount of ifs here, but if the technology used in the PS3 takes off then the PS3 will be set for quite some time. And what will the other companies do? Either not support the tech or scramble to release new systems or, at least, re-modified systems.

Perhaps Sony will get blown out of the water because they looked too far ahead, but I'm not so certain.

You can't single out Sony for not including a hdmi or component cable when 360's and Wii's still need mem cards, wi-fi hardware, component cables fibre optic cables etc etc. because they don't bundle them either. They are all guilty of accessory extortion.  :P

 :laugh:
I'm assuming  the mid 90s are what he was talking about, as his quotes from Sony are from around 95/96
These were two of Sony's excuses for their anti 2D stance.

He dose portray gaming back in this era perfectly though like I said earlier with 3D being too new and limited at the time.

I still love my 2D, but that's probably more from an artists prospective, as I love and admire good animation in games or film.
3D however by now of course has come a long way, so while there will always be a place with 2D games for me, 3D games have now long surpassed those limitations mentioned in the majority of cases.

I feel Blu-Ray on the PS3 is simply a marketing move, they could of used a different type of media, but want to hopefully pull of what they managed with the PS2.

The PS2 blew the DC off shelves, due to false hyped up stats? This is obviously one of Sony's favourite marketing strategies, as it worked before, so they went with it again, but no, this alone wouldn't of had the same impact. Sony caught the DVD revolution but made sure their system was the cheapest DVD player people could buy. DVDs were a huge success, and with the PS2 being the cheapest player you could get, even stores would use PS2s to display DVD movies.

I may hate Sony, but I'm not stupid, and know a great marketing strategy. Not only did you have one of the cheapest DVD players of the time, but since DVDs were just new, not many people had a DVD player. So it didn't matter if you were looking to upgrade your system or upgrade your VCR, you would see it as a nobrainer, you get what you want, plus a bonus feature while saving money. If you wanted both a DVD player, and anew system, you'd be in heaven back at the PS2 early days.

Sony simply want to do the same once again. This time being a creator of it makes all all the easier to make their system much cheaper than other companies players. Will this tactic work again? It's hard to say, DVD were such a leap forward from videos, while Blu-Ray isn't quite so revolutionary despite it's ad of the Blue-Ray player transforming your room multiple times and holographic helicopters flying out of the screen. Mind you if Blu-Ray could really do this, I would buy a player right now :nod:

Time will tell... but on this note, I'm a Saturn Otaku. I would consider myself a Saturn/Old Skool Sega  fanboy, but then again am I? I listen to what others say, and admit if I feel I'm wrong. I also only hate Sony, and not it's fans, or supporters. But I do think those who camped out to get a PS3 are censored wits.

I also find Sony-Fan Leon's new Sony Nazi style humorous. :)

SEGA SATURN SHIRO!

http://www.isuppli.com/news/default.asp?id=6919

According to this study the Blu-Ray drive doesn't even cost 200 dollars, so there's no way the playstation 3 would be 200 dollars cheaper if it weren't in it. Especially because they're already losing money on the thing.

What proprietary format should they use? DVD, like the 360? That's almost like a step back in time. Even microsoft acknowledges that by releasing the HD DVD add on. Technologies are constantly evolving and when there isn't a proprietary format yet, it's sony's good right to promote the format they prefer. There will never be a proprietary format if both sides don't promote the hell out of their technology and one can claim victory.

I think some of you people are forgetting that the playstation 3 should have a life time of about 5 years. Sure, not a lot of people have 1080p now and not a lot of people might have need for Blu-Ray now, but in a few years all of that might have changed. Besides, it's not like you NEED 1080p to unjoy blue ray. It'll look good at 720p too.

Buying a 360 with an HD DVD player is just as expensive as a Playstation 3. But in the case of the 360 you have an extra thing inconveniently plugged into it and the console makes a terrible amount of noise. That makes for some very uncomfortable watching.

Ok. Per the article, the Blu-Ray drive costs them $125 vs. about $20 for a DVD drive. You think that that $100 difference and cost savings couldn't be passed down to the customer?

And sure, you don't "need" 1080p to enjoy Blu-Ray if your TV's resolution is 720p, but why be forced into paying for the tech that you don't use?

@Tan, the 360 premium console ($400 version) includes a component video cable as well as a headset and an ethernet cable.

And industry pundits aside regarding what is a "bargain"...$600 is $600! And that's NOT a bargain to me.

They didn't include a component? That is lame. The 360 comes with one. As much as Sony is talking about HD at the least it coould og come with a component cable.

Sony is the status symbol of electroic devices.  It always has been, and most likely always will be.  
They make some nice products, but they will always be expensive.

They do make nice stuff but it is too expensive. There is other brands just as good that are cheaper.

You say it's lame to exclude the cables, yet you also say nobody has the capabilities to use them yet. So why would Sony give out cables for things that nobody has?

And I agree with Arr on the DVD front. You can't believe that video tech won't advance past the DVD, it's going to continue to change and, like Tan said, if Blu-Ray is the thing of the future then PS3 is the way you'll to go. It's cheaper than other Blu-Ray players and it's also a Playstation. That's the market strategy, the difference between now and last time is the fact that Blu-Ray hasn't been quite as established as the conquerer of DVD. When DVD first showed up it was considered to be a marvelous replacement.

And no $600 is not cheap, but after buying a 360 for $399 and then the HD-DVD for $199 you will be spending THE SAME AMOUNT as you would buying a PS3. So...what's the big deal?

I am saying component cables is what I am talking about. Not the HDMI. My TV uses component cables. All HDTV's do. Not to many use the HDMI.

Aha, well I'd find some way to refute you but I've got to run to class.

Yup. Composite only. See the attached. The paragraph above "Controller Makeover".

http://reviews.cnet.com/Sony_PlayStation_3_60GB/4505-6464_7-31355103.html?tag=ms

The component video cable in the 360 is capable of being used as a composite as well if needed, which gives flexibility to the consumer. The PS3's is composite-only, no flexibility for the consumer...go buy the component cable for another $30+.

And the point of the HDDVD player is that you, the consumer, can CHOOSE NOT TO BUY IT! That way, your gaming console is $400...for gaming...period; and you can watch standard DVDs on it. The point is that you don't have to purchase a technology that you don't want. THAT'S WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL! Sony is not giving the consumer that choice...again, no flexibility.

Do they give you a remote control for the blue ray player?
If not, then its worthless.  Sure it will work in a pinch, but it will never be more than a second class player.

I agree 100% with that. I would rather spend 1k on  real Blu-Ray player the 600 for the PS3 are a Blu-Ray player.

Then there's something wrong with you.

But why should Sony give people a choice when people are going to buy it anyways? Hell they're going to sell a lot of PS3s even if it doesn't do great, and that will push Blu-Ray further than HD-DVD exactly because people don't have the choice.

Yes I know but it doesn't include a fibre optic cable nor wi-fi though does it? Unless I got shammed when i bought mine.  :laugh:

Don't get me wrong I am not going to buy one. Maybe one day I will but no time soon.

Not at all, its a quality issue.
The blue ray player inside of the PS3 is not going to be as high quality as the one in the stand alone player. 
It is the same with the current gen systems that play DVDs.

Sounds nit-picky to me. My Playstation plays scratched discs that my DVD player won't and it's picture is just as clear.

Just because I would have to control it with a gamepad doesn't justify me spending $400 more dollars, especially if I can get PS3 gaming capabilities with the cheaper price.