Sony and their perpetual hole??

[QUOTE="Scoob64"]

[QUOTE="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.

Eltormo

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.

Dude, no one enters a market to "fight" or compete... this isn't Sportscenter. This is business... jobs, stocks, and profits. MS entered the market because they saw how big the console market was getting and decided they wanted a piece of the pie- not because they wanted to prove to 15 yr olds on the internet that they were the superior company. When and where were you when you paid $80 for a SNES game?? Are you taking inflation into account? I don't remember ever seeing an SNES game going for that much MSRP. You said that Sega would have failed against Nintendo... or at least I think thats what you said. What proof do you have of that?? Sega had captured most of the market with Genesis - and aside from bad decisions such as the Sega CD and 32x, could have really turned things around with Saturn if Sony had not come along... think about it - Nintendo was still using cartridges- so you can bet ur britches that tons of devs would have flocked to the CD medium - especially Japanese ones considering how the Saturn sold in Japan. You are making ridiculous claims that have no backing.

[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.

Scoob64

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.

All I can think is that the PS3's primary initial purpose was to help Blu-ray win the format war, and secondly to try to attract gamers by putting out the most powerful console on the market. But profiting, profiting clearly would not happen for a long time, and surely they must have seen that.

After reading that, I can only deduce the writer really hates Sony.

[QUOTE="Scoob64"]

[QUOTE="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.

Eltormo

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.

[QUOTE="gamebreakerz__"][QUOTE="elcoholic"]

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

that was not a biased piece, quitcher crying.

sony made massive mistakes this gen and they have payed the price by going from 70% market share to less than a third.

blu-ray not being needed is true. ones and zeros could literally be stored on loom paper punch cards fom the 19th century and games would be the same. you would just need a pile of them 14 stories tall.

TEH CELL! being overly complex, a pain in devs asses, overhyped and underperforming is true.

you may not likethe reality of the situation but sony made their bed and now it's time to lie in it.

making excuses for them helps nobody, all that will do is encourage them to not learn their lesson.

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__

Sometimes you just read a post, shake your head and and laugh at the naievety...

[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.gensigns

Sometimes you just read a post, shake your head and and laugh at the naievety...

haha.. true

Who cares. You had a right to hate Sony and the PS3 from launch until about 2008-2009. Overpriced hunk of junk with very few games. $600-$800 depending on what country you lived in.

Be glad they finally got more games, added HDD space, made a slim, lowered the price and that you can laugh at anyone who bought one at launch and paid twice the amount that you paid ;)

They aren't hurting me with whatever they do to raise their production costs on games. I rent before I buy anyway. Can finish most of these games in a 2 day rental. 6-12 hours of gameplay that may or may not suck isn't worth $60 for me and it never will be.

[QUOTE="fadersdream"]

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.

Scoob64

spoken like someone of intelligence

agreed.

Sony just live in their own little world, just let them do and think what they want, the real world always catches up eventually.VideoGameGuy

How do Playstation fans live in there own world and not the real world?

I dont agree with the article, Let alone that sony isn't in a perpetual hole, they made quite a few mistakes this generation and likely wont get out of those mistakes before the next series of systems are released but they have next gen to get back on top.