Interesting article... what do you think? before I get flamed, I am not saying I agree with the author- just saying it is interesting.
Sorry if old.
Sony and their perpetual hole??
This topic is locked from further discussion.
idk why all the hate towards Sony, where would game would be now if the original PlayStation never existed?Interesting article... what do you think? before I get flamed, I am not saying I agree with the author- just saying it is interesting.
Sorry if old.
Scoob64
[QUOTE="Scoob64"]idk why all the hate towards Sony, where would game would be now if the original PlayStation never existed? Ditto for Nintendo tho, and they get ripped apart constantly...Interesting article... what do you think? before I get flamed, I am not saying I agree with the author- just saying it is interesting.
Sorry if old.
Kane04
Haters will hate.gamebreakerz__
me or the author?
i don't know if you could say anyone is "hating" here... its important to distinguish between someone analyzing business practices and having a negative opinion of them and "hating". for example, I love Sega- but I could write an article on how detestable their business practices were in the mid to late 90s.
[QUOTE="gamebreakerz__"]Haters will hate.Scoob64
me or the author?
i don't know if you could say anyone is "hating" here... its important to distinguish between someone analyzing business practices and having a negative opinion of them and "hating". for example, I love Sega- but I could write an article on how detestable their business practices were in the mid to late 90s.
The author, he says that they dug a hole with the bluray because it costs to much and they should've created a less powerful unit. Sure, they lost a few billion $ but now they are making a profit and will do so for the rest of this 10 year cycle, and they have a much better system.[QUOTE="Scoob64"][QUOTE="gamebreakerz__"]Haters will hate.gamebreakerz__
me or the author?
i don't know if you could say anyone is "hating" here... its important to distinguish between someone analyzing business practices and having a negative opinion of them and "hating". for example, I love Sega- but I could write an article on how detestable their business practices were in the mid to late 90s.
The author, he says that they dug a hole with the bluray because it costs to much and they should've created a less powerful unit. Sure, they lost a few billion $ but now they are making a profit and will do so for the rest of this 10 year cycle, and they have a much better system.It's not really just about operating loss and income. The PS3 probably would have sold a lot better than it did if it was at a lower price. I remember opening up a newspaper, seeing the PS3 advertised for AUD$899, and thinking 'no way in hell'.
Which console you prefer really just comes down to taste. As much as I like the PS3, I find the Xbox 360 to be better suited to what I wanted, which is why I ended up getting the Xbox 360 S over the PS3 Slim.
[QUOTE="gamebreakerz__"][QUOTE="Scoob64"]
me or the author?
i don't know if you could say anyone is "hating" here... its important to distinguish between someone analyzing business practices and having a negative opinion of them and "hating". for example, I love Sega- but I could write an article on how detestable their business practices were in the mid to late 90s.
The author, he says that they dug a hole with the bluray because it costs to much and they should've created a less powerful unit. Sure, they lost a few billion $ but now they are making a profit and will do so for the rest of this 10 year cycle, and they have a much better system.It's not really just about operating loss and income. The PS3 probably would have sold a lot better than it did if it was at a lower price. I remember opening up a newspaper, seeing the PS3 advertised for AUD$899, and thinking 'no way in hell'.
Which console you prefer really just comes down to taste. As much as I like the PS3, I find the Xbox 360 to be better suited to what I wanted, which is why I ended up getting the Xbox 360 S over the PS3 Slim.
If Sony had released a less powerful unit back then then they of course would have more sales and cash but isn't it clear that Sonys objectives are not pure cash like nintendo, but actually providing the best gaming experience to the user.[QUOTE="NotTarts"][QUOTE="gamebreakerz__"] The author, he says that they dug a hole with the bluray because it costs to much and they should've created a less powerful unit. Sure, they lost a few billion $ but now they are making a profit and will do so for the rest of this 10 year cycle, and they have a much better system.gamebreakerz__
It's not really just about operating loss and income. The PS3 probably would have sold a lot better than it did if it was at a lower price. I remember opening up a newspaper, seeing the PS3 advertised for AUD$899, and thinking 'no way in hell'.
Which console you prefer really just comes down to taste. As much as I like the PS3, I find the Xbox 360 to be better suited to what I wanted, which is why I ended up getting the Xbox 360 S over the PS3 Slim.
If Sony had released a less powerful unit back then then they of course would have more sales and cash but isn't it clear that Sonys objectives are not pure cash like nintendo, but actually providing the best gaming experience to the user.no sir. If you think Sony's first priority isn't profit then you are buying into fanboyism. Now, I'm not saying that those working for Sony don't want people to enjoy their product to the fullest extent- but all companies are out for profit before anything and everything.
If Sony had released a less powerful unit back then then they of course would have more sales and cash but isn't it clear that Sonys objectives are not pure cash like nintendo, but actually providing the best gaming experience to the user.gamebreakerz__I agree but after this generation i think Sony will think twice about it. I mean Nintendo barely put any effort on the Wii and look at their sales? I don't even know how much a wii costs when you place it on a shelve (making & transport, total cost) but i bet on day one they were already making money unlike Microsoft and specially Sony. Personally i think they made the right choices (not by chance i only own 1 console of this generation) but i'd hate to see them take another route just with their eyes on profit, like if they release a cheaper PS3 model, 20GB HDD no wi-fi, no bluetooth (controllers with cord) pretty much just the minimum of the minimum to play PS3 games. If you look at it maybe its not a bad idea, it would mean more Blu ray players to grown that market larger and more people buying PS3 games. Honestly i'm not worried about that, i'm worried about Sony's future. They did what they did this gen and they look to their side and see Nintendo with boat loads of cash, if i were they i'd be feeling pretty stupid and repeating to myself "don't work hard, work smart" I hope they can pull another campaign for the PS4 like the "It only does everything" only sooner, that slogan would be awesome with the release of the PS3.
[QUOTE="NotTarts"][QUOTE="gamebreakerz__"] The author, he says that they dug a hole with the bluray because it costs to much and they should've created a less powerful unit. Sure, they lost a few billion $ but now they are making a profit and will do so for the rest of this 10 year cycle, and they have a much better system.gamebreakerz__
It's not really just about operating loss and income. The PS3 probably would have sold a lot better than it did if it was at a lower price. I remember opening up a newspaper, seeing the PS3 advertised for AUD$899, and thinking 'no way in hell'.
Which console you prefer really just comes down to taste. As much as I like the PS3, I find the Xbox 360 to be better suited to what I wanted, which is why I ended up getting the Xbox 360 S over the PS3 Slim.
If Sony had released a less powerful unit back then then they of course would have more sales and cash but isn't it clear that Sonys objectives are not pure cash like nintendo, but actually providing the best gaming experience to the user.No in the end Sony went for what they did because they thought it would be the most profitable solution long term, I'd argue that it wasn't and they'd probably agree thus that had to dramatically change their approach this generation resulting in big losses. They made a big mistake and they've learnt from it.Well every one is coming out with a 3D TV so if the craze doesn't last oh well but if it does, then they will be prepared for it. Yeah PS3 was super expensive but it allowed Sony to corner the HD format which i'm sure they are making a ton of dough with. PSN plus I doubt will replace free online gaming at least not this generation. Yes the PSmove is expensive but the author doesn't realize is people might own a pseye already so they would spend 100 bucks on two wands and not the bundle. Plus Sony's next console will probably use those same controllers so they can sell a stand alone console next gen for people who already bought them. MS is doing the same thing with Kinect, they are planning for the future. OH and PSPGO was the biggest mistake ever, no need to defend that.
The author acknowledges that the ps3 has created a market for Sony's HDTVs and Blu-ray players. Sony is more than a gaming company, if the losses they incur in their gaming department help produce better profits in other divisions, they still are in the green.
Also I don't think they are digging deeper and deeper into this hole as the article states. The ps3 recently became profitable, there sales are up, software sales are up, and they have a big system seller coming out this year, which they haven't really had since MGS4 came out. I mean, plenty of great games, but a system seller is more notoriety than quality, and most of their great games this gen have been more recent franchises.
I'm sure the KB ads weren't the only change that came around with their new strategy, and that they have a plan for their gaming division that coincides with their goals for their other divisions. One thing this article fails to really see is the long term goals that Sony may have.
For all we know they could be using this gen, after two very successful gens, as more of a positioning move for next gen. I think the ps3 has been fantastic so far, and can't wait to see what they come up with after the lessons they learned this gen.
[QUOTE="gamebreakerz__"][QUOTE="NotTarts"]
It's not really just about operating loss and income. The PS3 probably would have sold a lot better than it did if it was at a lower price. I remember opening up a newspaper, seeing the PS3 advertised for AUD$899, and thinking 'no way in hell'.
Which console you prefer really just comes down to taste. As much as I like the PS3, I find the Xbox 360 to be better suited to what I wanted, which is why I ended up getting the Xbox 360 S over the PS3 Slim.
If Sony had released a less powerful unit back then then they of course would have more sales and cash but isn't it clear that Sonys objectives are not pure cash like nintendo, but actually providing the best gaming experience to the user.no sir. If you think Sony's first priority isn't profit then you are buying into fanboyism. Now, I'm not saying that those working for Sony don't want people to enjoy their product to the fullest extent- but all companies are out for profit before anything and everything.
If their first priority was profit then why did they sell the PS3 at a $300 loss, knowing they would lose billions. It's clear that casual crap is where the money is at and if you think Sony are going to release a piece of crap for the casuals next gen then you are sadly mistaken. In pretty much all thier products across the whole company they strive to provide the best piece of technology available and there is no doubt in my mind that while of course they want to make a profit, they will not stoop as low as Nintendo as to knowingly create an extremely inferior piece of technology with dollar signs in their eyes. Incase you didn't know, Sony delayed the release of the PS3 after they realised the hardware was too similar to the 360s, knowing the move would cost them millions of dollars in early sales.[QUOTE="Scoob64"][QUOTE="gamebreakerz__"] If Sony had released a less powerful unit back then then they of course would have more sales and cash but isn't it clear that Sonys objectives are not pure cash like nintendo, but actually providing the best gaming experience to the user.gamebreakerz__
no sir. If you think Sony's first priority isn't profit then you are buying into fanboyism. Now, I'm not saying that those working for Sony don't want people to enjoy their product to the fullest extent- but all companies are out for profit before anything and everything.
If their first priority was profit then why did they sell the PS3 at a $300 loss, knowing they would lose billions. It's clear that casual crap is where the money is at and if you think Sony are going to release a piece of crap for the casuals next gen then you are sadly mistaken. In pretty much all thier products across the whole company they strive to provide the best piece of technology available and there is no doubt in my mind that while of course they want to make a profit, they will not stoop as low as Nintendo as to knowingly create an extremely inferior piece of technology with dollar signs in their eyes. Incase you didn't know, Sony delayed the release of the PS3 after they realised the hardware was too similar to the 360s, knowing the move would cost them millions of dollars in early sales.Of course Sony is a business and they need and want to turn a great profit on everything they sell and do. But not all businesses are run by people with dollar signs (or in this case yen signs) in their eyes, some businesses, and often the most successful, are run by people passionate about what they do.
Also, big businesses have maneuvering space in the form of large cash reserves that allow them to do things like take a loss in the interim if they believe it will pay off later. Taking a loss on your tech at first is a form of internal investing, nothing more. No company will knowingly run their company into the dirt, but the best companies won't knowingly pump out garbage and call it gold either.
Wow, the amount of hate in this article is overwhelming. I believe Sony is in much better position than what the writer claims, the PS3 tech is becoming cheaper and cheaper and the best thing is it's long lasting, Move is cheaper than Natal and it's more applicable in gaming. Sony is turning a profit. This is the worst time for articles like this one :D .
[QUOTE="NotTarts"][QUOTE="gamebreakerz__"] The author, he says that they dug a hole with the bluray because it costs to much and they should've created a less powerful unit. Sure, they lost a few billion $ but now they are making a profit and will do so for the rest of this 10 year cycle, and they have a much better system.gamebreakerz__
It's not really just about operating loss and income. The PS3 probably would have sold a lot better than it did if it was at a lower price. I remember opening up a newspaper, seeing the PS3 advertised for AUD$899, and thinking 'no way in hell'.
Which console you prefer really just comes down to taste. As much as I like the PS3, I find the Xbox 360 to be better suited to what I wanted, which is why I ended up getting the Xbox 360 S over the PS3 Slim.
If Sony had released a less powerful unit back then then they of course would have more sales and cash but isn't it clear that Sonys objectives are not pure cash like nintendo, but actually providing the best gaming experience to the user. Sony is a business like every other company:|they are out their to make money.Wow, the amount of hate in this article is overwhelming. I believe Sony is in much better position than what the writer claims, the PS3 tech is becoming cheaper and cheaper and the best thing is it's long lasting, Move is cheaper than Natal and it's more applicable in gaming. Sony is turning a profit. This is the worst time for articles like this one :D .
omho88
There's not actually as much hate there as you might think. For the most part, it seems many of the points made are backed with facts.
[QUOTE="gamebreakerz__"][QUOTE="NotTarts"]
It's not really just about operating loss and income. The PS3 probably would have sold a lot better than it did if it was at a lower price. I remember opening up a newspaper, seeing the PS3 advertised for AUD$899, and thinking 'no way in hell'.
Which console you prefer really just comes down to taste. As much as I like the PS3, I find the Xbox 360 to be better suited to what I wanted, which is why I ended up getting the Xbox 360 S over the PS3 Slim.
If Sony had released a less powerful unit back then then they of course would have more sales and cash but isn't it clear that Sonys objectives are not pure cash like nintendo, but actually providing the best gaming experience to the user. Sony is a business like every other company:|they are out their to make money. Yes but it's all relevant, comparing Sony to Nintendo is like comparing Activision and Crytec. Ones interested in providing the best experience AND making money, ones interested in making money and.... making more money.[QUOTE="omho88"]
Wow, the amount of hate in this article is overwhelming. I believe Sony is in much better position than what the writer claims, the PS3 tech is becoming cheaper and cheaper and the best thing is it's long lasting, Move is cheaper than Natal and it's more applicable in gaming. Sony is turning a profit. This is the worst time for articles like this one :D .
There's not actually as much hate there as you might think. For the most part, it seems many of the points made are backed with facts.
He said the PS3 using bluray was a mistake. It's one of the best things they did and makes it superior to the other consoles.[QUOTE="omho88"]
Wow, the amount of hate in this article is overwhelming. I believe Sony is in much better position than what the writer claims, the PS3 tech is becoming cheaper and cheaper and the best thing is it's long lasting, Move is cheaper than Natal and it's more applicable in gaming. Sony is turning a profit. This is the worst time for articles like this one :D .
There's not actually as much hate there as you might think. For the most part, it seems many of the points made are backed with facts.
Give me 2 claims from the writer supported by facts.If Sony had released a less powerful unit back then then they of course would have more sales and cash but isn't it clear that Sonys objectives are not pure cash like nintendo, but actually providing the best gaming experience to the user. Sony is a business like every other company:|they are out their to make money.[QUOTE="gamebreakerz__"][QUOTE="NotTarts"]
It's not really just about operating loss and income. The PS3 probably would have sold a lot better than it did if it was at a lower price. I remember opening up a newspaper, seeing the PS3 advertised for AUD$899, and thinking 'no way in hell'.
Which console you prefer really just comes down to taste. As much as I like the PS3, I find the Xbox 360 to be better suited to what I wanted, which is why I ended up getting the Xbox 360 S over the PS3 Slim.
walkingdream
You're both right. Sony went out to make the best gaming experience they thought was possible in the assumption that that would make them the most money.
[QUOTE="walkingdream"]
If Sony had released a less powerful unit back then then they of course would have more sales and cash but isn't it clear that Sonys objectives are not pure cash like nintendo, but actually providing the best gaming experience to the user.gamebreakerz__Sony is a business like every other company:|they are out their to make money.
You're both right. Sony went out to make the best gaming experience they thought was possible in the assumption that that would make them the most money.
Nintendo went out with a piece of crap, knowing if they tried to compete like they did with the gamecube they would fail.If Sony had released a less powerful unit back then then they of course would have more sales and cash but isn't it clear that Sonys objectives are not pure cash like nintendo, but actually providing the best gaming experience to the user. Sony is a business like every other company:|they are out their to make money. That's the first mistake of business if you think that way then you'll never be successful. A Company's major focus is to meet a need, when you do that profits come automatically.[QUOTE="gamebreakerz__"][QUOTE="NotTarts"]
It's not really just about operating loss and income. The PS3 probably would have sold a lot better than it did if it was at a lower price. I remember opening up a newspaper, seeing the PS3 advertised for AUD$899, and thinking 'no way in hell'.
Which console you prefer really just comes down to taste. As much as I like the PS3, I find the Xbox 360 to be better suited to what I wanted, which is why I ended up getting the Xbox 360 S over the PS3 Slim.
walkingdream
[QUOTE="NotTarts"][QUOTE="gamebreakerz__"] The author, he says that they dug a hole with the bluray because it costs to much and they should've created a less powerful unit. Sure, they lost a few billion $ but now they are making a profit and will do so for the rest of this 10 year cycle, and they have a much better system.gamebreakerz__
It's not really just about operating loss and income. The PS3 probably would have sold a lot better than it did if it was at a lower price. I remember opening up a newspaper, seeing the PS3 advertised for AUD$899, and thinking 'no way in hell'.
Which console you prefer really just comes down to taste. As much as I like the PS3, I find the Xbox 360 to be better suited to what I wanted, which is why I ended up getting the Xbox 360 S over the PS3 Slim.
If Sony had released a less powerful unit back then then they of course would have more sales and cash but isn't it clear that Sonys objectives are not pure cash like nintendo, but actually providing the best gaming experience to the user.you should look up "convergence device"
building consoles hasn't really primarily been about gaming since the PS2 launched :?
if anything the Wii is the only console on the market designed primarily for gaming
If Sony had released a less powerful unit back then then they of course would have more sales and cash but isn't it clear that Sonys objectives are not pure cash like nintendo, but actually providing the best gaming experience to the user.gamebreakerz__Sony is a business like every other company:|they are out their to make money. That's the first mistake of business if you think that way then you'll never be successful. A Company's major focus is to meet a need, when you do that profits come automatically. Exactly, after seeing the wii and 360, they knew flooding the market with the same stuff wouldn't work, so they made something better, knowing it would pay off. Thats the same with all of Sonys products, TVs, cameras, you name it they most likely have the superior equipment, thats just the way they operate.
[QUOTE="walkingdream"] Sony is a business like every other company:|they are out their to make money.
You're both right. Sony went out to make the best gaming experience they thought was possible in the assumption that that would make them the most money.
Nintendo went out with a piece of crap, knowing if they tried to compete like they did with the gamecube they would fail. Well to be fair Nintendo doesn't have the same resources as Sony or MS. Nintendo tried to use Sony's model of targeting hardcore gamers with the gamecube and it failed.[QUOTE="gamebreakerz__"][QUOTE="NotTarts"]
It's not really just about operating loss and income. The PS3 probably would have sold a lot better than it did if it was at a lower price. I remember opening up a newspaper, seeing the PS3 advertised for AUD$899, and thinking 'no way in hell'.
Which console you prefer really just comes down to taste. As much as I like the PS3, I find the Xbox 360 to be better suited to what I wanted, which is why I ended up getting the Xbox 360 S over the PS3 Slim.
If Sony had released a less powerful unit back then then they of course would have more sales and cash but isn't it clear that Sonys objectives are not pure cash like nintendo, but actually providing the best gaming experience to the user.you should look up "convergence device"
building consoles hasn't really primarily been about gaming since the PS2 launched :?
if anything the Wii is the only console on the market designed primarily for gaming
Primarily for casual gaming, to suggest that the PS3 and 360 were not targeted at gaming is dumb. Sure, Sony marketed the PS3 as a bluray player because it was the cheapest bluray player at the time and they knew people would buy games if they got a PS3. The wii is not targeted at games, its targeted at money.[QUOTE="Tyrant156"][QUOTE="walkingdream"] Sony is a business like every other company:|they are out their to make money.That's the first mistake of business if you think that way then you'll never be successful. A Company's major focus is to meet a need, when you do that profits come automatically. Exactly, after seeing the wii and 360, they knew flooding the market with the same stuff wouldn't work, so they made something better, knowing it would pay off. Thats the same with all of Sonys products, TVs, cameras, you name it they most likely have the superior equipment, thats just the way they operate.gamebreakerz__
they're okay, but if you want the best you have to shop around, get a samsung tv, onkyo/klipsch/etc. for sound, canon or nikon for camera, etc.
they were top dog like 5 years ago, but nowadays they're mostly a nice backup
not to mention their prices always put them in the range or higher than better devices, at least they aren't like Bosch
If Sony had released a less powerful unit back then then they of course would have more sales and cash but isn't it clear that Sonys objectives are not pure cash like nintendo, but actually providing the best gaming experience to the user.[QUOTE="gamebreakerz__"][QUOTE="NotTarts"]
It's not really just about operating loss and income. The PS3 probably would have sold a lot better than it did if it was at a lower price. I remember opening up a newspaper, seeing the PS3 advertised for AUD$899, and thinking 'no way in hell'.
Which console you prefer really just comes down to taste. As much as I like the PS3, I find the Xbox 360 to be better suited to what I wanted, which is why I ended up getting the Xbox 360 S over the PS3 Slim.
88mphSlayer
you should look up "convergence device"
building consoles hasn't really primarily been about gaming since the PS2 launched :?
if anything the Wii is the only console on the market designed primarily for gaming
Which is a bad thing, that's like buying a cell phone that just made phone calls, technology should merge. Why have 3 seperate devices when you can ahve them all in one.[QUOTE="88mphSlayer"][QUOTE="gamebreakerz__"] If Sony had released a less powerful unit back then then they of course would have more sales and cash but isn't it clear that Sonys objectives are not pure cash like nintendo, but actually providing the best gaming experience to the user.gamebreakerz__
you should look up "convergence device"
building consoles hasn't really primarily been about gaming since the PS2 launched :?
if anything the Wii is the only console on the market designed primarily for gaming
Primarily for casual gaming, to suggest that the PS3 and 360 were not targeted at gaming is dumb. Sure, Sony marketed the PS3 as a bluray player because it was the cheapest bluray player at the time and they knew people would buy games if they got a PS3. The wii is not targeted at games, its targeted at money.they're all targeted at money
and yes being primarily focused at casual gaming is still being primarily focused at gaming
whereas the PS3 was shipped with a web browser, music playback, bluray and dvd playback, linux, digital card readers, etc.
the only problem for Sony is that Microsoft made digital services more popular than physical services, hence why Sony has constantly removed hardware features and later introduced a digital service
but either way, Microsoft and Sony are in the business of making convergence devices, that's been their plan for ages and both have talked about their goal of making a single device you use for everything in the living room since the 90's
[QUOTE="88mphSlayer"][QUOTE="gamebreakerz__"] If Sony had released a less powerful unit back then then they of course would have more sales and cash but isn't it clear that Sonys objectives are not pure cash like nintendo, but actually providing the best gaming experience to the user.Tyrant156
you should look up "convergence device"
building consoles hasn't really primarily been about gaming since the PS2 launched :?
if anything the Wii is the only console on the market designed primarily for gaming
Which is a bad thing, that's like buying a cell phone that just made phone calls, technology should merge. Why have 3 seperate devices when you can ahve them all in one.not saying it's a bad thing, just pointing out that if you had 2 phones, both place calls, except one has more features, but the other is cheaper... it's hard to say that the one with more features cares more about phone calls
especially when phone calls is the only thing the cheaper phone has going for it
Which is a bad thing, that's like buying a cell phone that just made phone calls, technology should merge. Why have 3 seperate devices when you can ahve them all in one.[QUOTE="Tyrant156"][QUOTE="88mphSlayer"]
you should look up "convergence device"
building consoles hasn't really primarily been about gaming since the PS2 launched :?
if anything the Wii is the only console on the market designed primarily for gaming
88mphSlayer
not saying it's a bad thing, just pointing out that if you had 2 phones, both place calls, except one has more features, but the other is cheaper... it's hard to say that the one with more features cares more about phone calls
especially when phone calls is the only thing the cheaper phone has going for it
Hehe yeah but that scenerio doesn't exist anymore, there are no cell phones left that just make phone calls. Nintendo does stick to what they know and have been doing fine so far but I wonder what they have planned next for their next console.[QUOTE="Kane04"][QUOTE="Scoob64"]idk why all the hate towards Sony, where would game would be now if the original PlayStation never existed?Ditto for Nintendo tho, and they get ripped apart constantly...Interesting article... what do you think? before I get flamed, I am not saying I agree with the author- just saying it is interesting.
Sorry if old.
locopatho
for every 1 Nintendo hater there are 100 Playstation haters...
[QUOTE="gamebreakerz__"][QUOTE="elcoholic"]Nintendo went out with a piece of crap, knowing if they tried to compete like they did with the gamecube they would fail. Well to be fair Nintendo doesn't have the same resources as Sony or MS. Nintendo tried to use Sony's model of targeting hardcore gamers with the gamecube and it failed.You're both right. Sony went out to make the best gaming experience they thought was possible in the assumption that that would make them the most money.
Tyrant156
First, i'm pretty sure nintendo is swimming in money ever since the DS launched so I don't believe they were incapable of making an HD console. I think a few years ago i even read their profit was way higher than the entire sony corp.
Second, them launching the wii with specs on par with 360/ps3 would still have given them the unique contol mechanism. Only difference is they could have gotten every multiplat that's on the ps3/360 aswell. That would have made alot of gamers happy.
Most older gamers aren't too happy about the wii butnintendo did it damn smart from a financial standpiont though.
Btw, how did this subject turn to a wii debate?
[QUOTE="Scoob64"]idk why all the hate towards Sony, where would game would be now if the original PlayStation never existed?Interesting article... what do you think? before I get flamed, I am not saying I agree with the author- just saying it is interesting.
Sorry if old.
Kane04
In reallity without sony now we would be paying $80 dollars per game tied to Nintendo's Zelda,Mario,metroid extravaganza that never end,with no greatest hits,and porbably no online play.
idk why all the hate towards Sony, where would game would be now if the original PlayStation never existed?[QUOTE="Kane04"][QUOTE="Scoob64"]
Interesting article... what do you think? before I get flamed, I am not saying I agree with the author- just saying it is interesting.
Sorry if old.
Eltormo
In reallity without sony now we would be paying $80 dollars per game tied to Nintendo's Zelda,Mario,metroid extravaganza that never end,with no greatest hits,and porbably no online play.
If it were not for Sony then Nintendo would still have competition from Microsoft and potentially Sega... so I don't think what you mentioned would pan out
Well to be fair Nintendo doesn't have the same resources as Sony or MS. Nintendo tried to use Sony's model of targeting hardcore gamers with the gamecube and it failed.[QUOTE="Tyrant156"][QUOTE="gamebreakerz__"] Nintendo went out with a piece of crap, knowing if they tried to compete like they did with the gamecube they would fail.elcoholic
First, i'm pretty sure nintendo is swimming in money ever since the DS launched so I don't believe they were incapable of making an HD console. I think a few years ago i even read their profit was way higher than the entire sony corp.
Second, them launching the wii with specs on par with 360/ps3 would still have given them the unique contol mechanism. Only difference is they could have gotten every multiplat that's on the ps3/360 aswell. That would have made alot of gamers happy.
Most older gamers aren't too happy about the wii butnintendo did it damn smart from a financial standpiont though.
Btw, how did this subject turn to a wii debate?
They probably didn't have time to develop a console with profits from the DS and you have to remember the GC sold very badly so they didn't want to sell a console at a loss. Sony as a Corp is huge, they are in several diivision of business. Music, Movies , electronics. Sony can barrow money much easier than nintendo could. Same with MS, they have much more resources.[QUOTE="Eltormo"]
[QUOTE="Kane04"] idk why all the hate towards Sony, where would game would be now if the original PlayStation never existed?Scoob64
In reallity without sony now we would be paying $80 dollars per game tied to Nintendo's Zelda,Mario,metroid extravaganza that never end,with no greatest hits,and porbably no online play.
If it were not for Sony then Nintendo would still have competition from Microsoft and potentially Sega... so I don't think what you mentioned would pan out
MS did not enter the gaming market to fight Nintendo,they did so to fight with Sony it was very clear and still clear today.
And sega would have fail against Nintendo as well,not only sony bringed a new era of cheaper games,no longer you had to pay $80 dollars for a game,like i did with MK2 for the Snes,the PS3 version of MK3 cost me $49 and was much more arcade perfect than the Snes version of MK2 was.
Hell Sony was the company who actually pushed 3D foward,to the point of having several fight with company's who maked 2D games like Capcom.
A couple? Nintendo did it with one...[QUOTE="Tyrant156"][QUOTE="rp108"]
Agree with all of it. I don't think Sony can really rebound from the PS3 for another couple systems.
Eltormo
No it took 2 generation for Nintendo to get back on top,they since the Snes did not won one.
But the n64 did really well and it came much later, nintendos GC sold mucb worse than what the ps3 is selling now and they bounced backed the very next generation
Interesting article... what do you think? before I get flamed, I am not saying I agree with the author- just saying it is interesting.
Sorry if old.
idk why all the hate towards Sony, where would game would be now if the original PlayStation never existed? Ditto for Nintendo tho, and they get ripped apart constantly... Gaming would be more heavily on the PC. I don't understand why consolites think they are the saviours of gaming.
I hate this "Sony is a poor underdog who is truly one of the people". Quit making it out to be the victim/darkhorse. It's deranged.
Sony's biggest problem has always been that people blame the 360 for the PS3's shortcomings. Blame the Wii for how much a PS3 costs. Blame HD for how poor the games are. Sony is responsible for Sony. The weak game lineup for years was their fault, it wasn't because people bought gears of war or Halo instead of lair or heavenly sword or resistance. and it wasn't because people played cheap Wii games, or paid for online. There was poor development, too few people working on games (as opposed to blu ray) and too much confidence in reputation and hardware over software.
PS3 is a great system that had been poorly supported and that is no ones fault but sony and those who make excuses for them.
I hate this "Sony is a poor underdog who is truly one of the people". Quit making it out to be the victim/darkhorse. It's deranged.
Sony's biggest problem has always been that people blame the 360 for the PS3's shortcomings. Blame the Wii for how much a PS3 costs. Blame HD for how poor the games are. Sony is responsible for Sony. The weak game lineup for years was their fault, it wasn't because people bought gears of war or Halo instead of lair or heavenly sword or resistance. and it wasn't because people played cheap Wii games, or paid for online. There was poor development, too few people working on games (as opposed to blu ray) and too much confidence in reputation and hardware over software.
PS3 is a great system that had been poorly supported and that is no ones fault but sony and those who make excuses for them.
fadersdream
spoken like someone of intelligence
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment