Sony is done

I lol'd at Chad Warden, that's one of my favorite videos lately.

Anyway, where have the reasonable defenders of the Sony faith gone? Man this thread was hopping when people had things to say. I see I'm still angering many of you, but come on: Contribute something. By the by, I'm STILL waiting on someone to describe in some level of detail a game that you feel truly validates the PS3 as a system so that perhaps I may be pursuaded to believe Sony hasn't completely failed with this thing. Is it because you folks are just lazy, or have I won this whole debate? Not like it is a debate, but I decided to respond because I love a good system wars thread.

A note: The PS3 is outselling the 360? How proud many of you seem to be at this fact, that when Sony is clearing all it's inventory out to make room for a new model and the console line which has been out for months and months finally begins outselling a console which itself was released a year prior, you rejoice as if something remarkable has happened. And that trend will probably die off too, just based off how these systems have performed so far. I'm still seeing plenty of lonely PS3's at stores, folks. The sales argument isn't really a valid one in the first place bceause it's obvious that a lot of people buy a lot of complete **** (I hear the Wii is selling big) but that doesn't make it anything special, does it?

By the way, did anyone check out this week's HotSpot? I'm glad to see the Gamespot editors feeling the same way I do about this issue.

Sushbag88

Sorry kid, but your opinionated arguments don't warrant a rebuttal. "They're just like, your opinion, man." The PS3is nowoutselling the Xbox 360 in North America (just wait until this month's sales figures are released), while it has been continuously outselling the 360 in Europe, Australia, and Japan. You've already had a few people respond as to which games they feel validate PS3 as a console to own. Simply because you don't agree doesn't dismiss their arguments. If THEY feel those games validate a purchase, and they purchase a PS3 console, your argument has automatically become invalidated. I guess you just don't get it, do you?

Drake's Fortune, Ratchet and Clank, Metal Gear Solid 4, R:FOM, Gran Turismo, Unreal Tournament, Killzone:2, Final Fantasy, Lair, White Knight, Home...should I keep going?

There is no debate here. You've created a strawman argument. Your 'facts' are all opinions, and onlyYOUR opinion. You've failed and it's been pointed out to you numerous times in this thread. Quit beating a dead horse. It's over...your argument has failed. I could say that the Xbox will lose the console war because the hardware sucks, Halo is regurgitated crap, the only good games available are Forza and Gears, etc, etc, etc. But those arguments are my opinion and probably aren't shared by the gaming community at large, much like your lousy arguments. Seriously, give it up. You're making yourself look foolish.

This Gif Describes it pretty well.

Pre E3- Hey PS3 is $499

Last Day of E3- Btw its gonna go back upto $599

i think the reactions are perfect

alecsuba

by the way they are looking at the sales if it keeps this up the 80 will be 499 their not stupid

[QUOTE="darkjounin"]

http://www.1up.com/do/feature?cId=3145154

i shall spread this everytime these kinda topic happen :D

Sushbag88

I remember reading that back '05. That was when this whole issue was a bit less clear. I'll admit that after E3 2005 I was on Sony's side, but that was before either of them came out. I think we can all think more clearly now. Good article though, but not a good defense if you happen to be with Sony on this.

By the way folks, here's another interesting thing to point out. Why are Sony's responses to criticism steeped in this mystical idea of a "ten year plan"? They are seven months into this console's lifespan and they are dying, and literally on CNBC today (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFIDsTsWJHw)one Jack Tretton of Sony gave a laughable interview. When speaking of consumers buying the Wii at a higher rate than the PS3, he says, and I quote, "Ultimately, in time, we will convert those users over to the PS3." They are looking at a long-term, ten year life cycle for their box and are interested in making money later, not now. The PS2 was crushingly dominant in its day. Sure it was off to a slow start like the PS3 but it pulled ahead. There is no such development impending for the PS3. During the interview, the host tried to get to the point by asserting that Sony is clearly going for market share, not initial profit. The response was something about a ten year plan. Ten year plan? No console has EVER lasted ten years, not in terms of good games. This is what I'm talking about, Sony is like Bruce Willis in The Sixth Sense. Does Sony not know it's dead or something?

That is a very informative read, you really have it all figured out you must have been working in the gaming indurstry for about 15-20 years now to have everying all figured, you are really on the ball, Sony should hire youas there PR guy you seem to have tons of experience in the gaming industry you must have been taught by some of the greats!!! So what is your speciality software or hardware?

I really hope you enjoy my sarcasm!!!!! LOL:roll:

Sony had a phenomenal E3 with a great 2008 lineup. Three exclusives? You obviously know nothing about the console or its future lineup.

Ah, after a slow period we have a bevy of new posts. I knew you guys weren't just sitting here allowing me to bash the PS3.

Some of you are repeating meaningless statements, so let me say it again: The argument for sales has no point. What does it prove? Does it get you anywhere with the PS3? Do I have to point out the installed base differences just to beat down the "But my PS triple is selling huge, man!" thing? Save it. A gamer who gobbles up the garbage Nintendo has been calling Mario for the past few years will tell you how fast the Wii is selling, but a serious gamer won't even bother. It's obvious that sales don't necessarily equal a great product (though in some cases, like GTA/Halo/MGS, this is true).

Another thing I'll say yet again: Obviously I exaggerate when I say Sony should pull the PS3 and that they are finished. I know most of the people on this board are of questionable intelligence but please step back for a moment and realize that my posts contain a bit of scathing sarcasm. Clearly Sony would never quit the Playstation, and clearly there are enough fans of the limited amount of games on that console to keep them afloat. All of this wouldn't matter if Microsoft hadn't done such a damn fine job of securing titles on their 360 and we HAD to buy PS3's, but alas, that is the case.

Sorry kid, but your opinionated arguments don't warrant a rebuttal. "They're just like, your opinion, man." The PS3is nowoutselling the Xbox 360 in North America (just wait until this month's sales figures are released), while it has been continuously outselling the 360 in Europe, Australia, and Japan. You've already had a few people respond as to which games they feel validate PS3 as a console to own. Simply because you don't agree doesn't dismiss their arguments. If THEY feel those games validate a purchase, and they purchase a PS3 console, your argument has automatically become invalidated. I guess you just don't get it, do you?

Drake's Fortune, Ratchet and Clank, Metal Gear Solid 4, R:FOM, Gran Turismo, Unreal Tournament, Killzone:2, Final Fantasy, Lair, White Knight, Home...should I keep going?

There is no debate here. You've created a strawman argument. Your 'facts' are all opinions, and onlyYOUR opinion. You've failed and it's been pointed out to you numerous times in this thread. Quit beating a dead horse. It's over...your argument has failed. I could say that the Xbox will lose the console war because the hardware sucks, Halo is regurgitated crap, the only good games available are Forza and Gears, etc, etc, etc. But those arguments are my opinion and probably aren't shared by the gaming community at large, much like your lousy arguments. Seriously, give it up. You're making yourself look foolish.

bforrester

I am disappointed that I have to say this again, but I am quite aware that my rants have been opinionated and yes, I am aware that everyone is entitled to their opinions and yes, I am aware that their arguments don't become invalid just because I disagree. They do, however, become invalid if they are simply bad arguments to begin with, such as "That's just you're opinion," or "Sales figures show this," or "You suck." But you took the time to post more than these mere wastes of breath, and even though you thought my words haven't earned a rebuttal, you gave me one anyway so I thank you. Now I have something to work with!

You fall victim to the whole "that's just you're opinion," thing, though, and first I have to dismiss this. I never said that anything I am arguing for is an iron-clad fact. A fact would be NPD sales figures, an opinion would be me saying, "The PS3's lineup is a joke compared to the 360, since many of the exclusives I would have bought one for are now on the 360 and the ones that are left don't quite make the cut in terms of gameplay." You see the difference, yes? Good, I hope not to hear that one again. That goes for everyone.

My opinions aren't shared by the gaming community at large? Clearly not, and I am proud to say that. The gaming community at large buys Pokemon games. The gaming community at large buys Madden games. The gaming community at large appears to be quite stupid, so thank you for pointing out that my opinions don't fit with these people. In fact if you hadn't said it I would have done so at some point. I am not saying everyone is foolish. When World of Warcraft or some other good game consistently destroys bad games in sales, I am happy to say that there are enough people out there who appreciate a well-made game. The console market, however, is different. The console market appears to be less adept at picking out quality entertainment, and this I attribute to the fact that many of them aren't gamers (children, etc.) or simply don't expect to have that much fun with the games they buy.

So let's look at the games you listed. For nearly all of them they fall into two categories, which are: 1) Non-exclusive title, and 2) Inferior to a competing product on the 360. I say nearly all because I am huge Metal Gear fan and until that goes multiplatform I must give the PS3 credit where credit is due. I'm not saying those are all bad games, because you picked out the few that show promise. But stuff like Ratchet and Clank? What is that? Well made to be sure, but I'm not looking at that series like it's trying to do something special. I believe I mentioned something about only playing the best games on the consoles, since I am a PC gamer primarily anyway. Forza/PGR > GT, I think I said that already and with respect to those of you who like racing "simulators" I just like fun games. What else did you mention. Resistance! Ah, but of course, still the one currently available game which I would want to play if I bought a PS3. Resistance reminds me of Perfect Dark Zero. They both were the best games in their starting lineup, however PDZ is one of the most overlooked next gen games because CoD2 (a joke, by the way, compared to PDZ) got so much press, and PGR3 came out at the same time. I hold that PDZ is still one of the best looking games right now, and obviously Resistance doesn't outdo it. Certainly Resistance doesn't outdo it in gameplay, according to the Gamespot editors, most of whom I trust. Plus, I have a sweet spot for Rare since they made arguably the greatest console shooter of all time, or for those of you who are more Halo fans than anything, they at least made the best shooter until Halo. Anyway, I'd personally rather play PDZ but that's just one example of the kind of game that just happens to be on the 360 and not the PS3. Let's take Final Fantasy. I've heard there's one or two good Japanese RPG's coming to the 360, you might want to check on that because I despise most JRPG's and most of the people who play them. My reply to Final Fantasy, though, is Mass Effect. Somehow I want to play that more, because it's seems newer and more exciting. Killzone 2. That's one damn good looking game, but actually Cod 4 looks almost as good, and that's just a CoD game. I think Killzone will be the Doom 3 of the PS3 generation, which is to say it will have amazing graphics but be severely lacking in gameplay, particularly the replayability aspect of gameplay. I already know that Halo 3 is a blast online, Killzone 2 would have to be very, very different from the original Killzone to affect my opinions on that. And speaking of that, what makes people think Killzone 2 will be that great anyway? Certainly not the gameplay we've seen, and certainly not the original game. Unreal Tournament 3, you say? I'd rather play it on the PC, but it's also non-exclusive so yea. By the way, I'm not saying people can't argue for non-exclusive games as a reason to buy a console, but bear in mind I own a 360 and wouldn't buy the PS3 for a non-exclusive unless there was a drastic difference between them (a la GRAW). I'll give you MGS4, like I said. There's no denying that. Since that's really the only game I'm dying to play on the console, though, it doesn't justify paying $600, or, fine, even $500 to play one video game. Lair? Given that there's no Panzer Dragoon on the 360 I can't say that I can beat you there, but I've never been into the whole flying around on dragons shooting things genre, enlighten me if I've mistaken Lair for something it's not. Please do so, actually, because once again I am asking for people to properly defend just ONE of these games in a manner which is acceptable and not simply an insult.

Also, Forrester, don't mistake my dissatisfaction with Sony's platform and my cynical outlook for the PS3 as a strawman fallacy. I wasn't presenting my argument as a fact, because I am not, as has been suggested, an idiot. I'm not taking one bad game on the PS3 (I understand there are quite a few) and saying, "Look, see? That's why the PS3 fails." On the contrary, I'm looking at the supposed best games and just not seeing much of a reason beyond MGS4 to pick up the thing. Once again, please don't inform me that my position is "just my opinion," because given the fact that I said it, I understand that it is such. I feel like I should come up with something derogatory here, but I'll refrain because I feel keeping to the high road is the only way to have a debate with ravenous consolegamers, even ones who insult me in lieu of making a good point. Alright, so there you go Forrester. Do with that wall of text as you like.

Another thing: Someone pointed out that the 360 only has a limited lineup itself, and that some 360 owners were expressing their boredom until the next few months pass by. I'd like to re-reiterate that I play a lot of PC games and generally only pick up the sexy 360 controller until after I've had my fill of Counter-Strike anyway. Those guys are actually right, and as I said before in this thread, it's not the number of games but the quality of them. I mean it's the fact that you have Halo 3, which is going to provide a lot more replay value than MGS4 (not that MGS4 won't be required playing of course) and Mass Effect, which seems pretty innovative given the genre. You have your PGR4, which if you're a racing fan, is also required playing. You have that handful of exclusive games which are fantastic (I say again: PDZ) but then you also have these myriad non-exclusives. What pushes the 360 ahead, then, is all of those great games, some of which are launching multiplatform for the first time because of this whole console war issue, combined with what the 360 already has in terms of exclusives and you have you're preferable console. We're all going to play GTA4, Assassin's Creed, CoD 4, Team Fortress 2, that's a given. Why not play them on the preferable console then, to say nothing of pricing, online, and other areas where even PS3 fanboys can't argue with me?

Anybody who thinks any one of the systems is "done" is a complete moron and needs to take some lessons in business.

The dreamcast was a great system with alot of good games, it died before it's time. Right now I own a 360 and wii (the wii is more for my wife) because the 360 has more games that I want to play. If the PS3 ever comes out with anything that I think is worth playing I'll buy that system. Basically it boils down to one persons opinion I thought MGS4 and killzone didn't look that great, but I also thought that mass effect didn't look like all the hype and as for the wii well an old gamer like me really just doesn't care enough.seriousdan74

I had a Dreamcast, and I liked it enough to be at least somewhat sad when it went under. Am I lending too much praise to the PS3 by comparing it to Sega's last console? Probably. Look guys, Dan here has the guts to say it: "If the PS3 ever comes out with anything that I think is worth playing I'll buy that system." There you have it.

The 360 is my favorite current console but why the hell would u spend this much time typing up a thread just to pee off a bunch of ps3 fans.Even though i enjoy and prefer the 360 i have to admit that the ps3 portion of e3 was very very impressive.I just dont understand why people are so loyal to one game console to the point were they come online and type up rediculous thread posts just to get under the skins of other console fans.I understand this is system wars and this is were people come to argue about who has the better toy,its just if it werent because of people like u there wouldnt be a need for some stupid system wars crap,and that would be fine with me.Get a life people and enjoy your ps3,wii,360 or whatever it is that u have.Save your energy and argue about things more important than a silly console.

loudharley

Well said!!!

Ah, after a slow period we have a bevy of new posts. I knew you guys weren't just sitting here allowing me to bash the PS3.

...

Sushbag88

You know, neither the mark of intelligence nor eloquence in speech derive from using 30 words when five would suffice. I've been a lurker here for a while, and somehow, your post irked me enough to post this reply - congrats.

That said, your argument basically boils down to "take the best games from each console of each major genre, compare and whoever has the greater number wins". Distilled, you can see why this is a foolish approach: the "best" games are subjective! It'd be like saying that since Half-life 2 was one of the best shooters on the PC, it renders games like F.E.A.R., S.T.A.L.K.E.R., Crysis, Bioshock, and Battlefield moot.

As a matter of fact, that list there also illustrates my next point: great games do different things. Is there a "team-oriented FPS" genre, an "atmospheric shooter" genre, or a "best deathmatch multiplayer shooter" genre? Is one genre or one sub-genre better than another? What the hell does it even mean to have a "best" shooter?

Sweeping generalizations seek to reduce innovations and differences down to some arbitary numeric value, which would then be easily ranked and thus fulfill your desire to play "only the best". Honestly, that is quite a sad way to evaluate games, or anything really.

In laymen terms - this thread is full of fail.

Anybody who thinks any one of the systems is "done" is a complete moron and needs to take some lessons in business.

0bscurity

[QUOTE="Art_424"]I agree with your post, but can you make your speech a little bit shorter...???, I stoped reading it after the fisrt paragraph..zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzMikeE21286

how can you agree, you yourself admitted you only read the first paragraph :|

You know, neither the mark of intelligence nor eloquence in speech derive from using 30 words when five would suffice. I've been a lurker here for a while, and somehow, your post irked me enough to post this reply - congrats.

That said, your argument basically boils down to "take the best games from each console of each major genre, compare and whoever has the greater number wins". Distilled, you can see why this is a foolish approach: the "best" games are subjective! It'd be like saying that since Half-life 2 was one of the best shooters on the PC, it renders games like F.E.A.R., S.T.A.L.K.E.R., Crysis, Bioshock, and Battlefield moot.

As a matter of fact, that list there also illustrates my next point: great games do different things. Is there a "team-oriented FPS" genre, an "atmospheric shooter" genre, or a "best deathmatch multiplayer shooter" genre? Is one genre or one sub-genre better than another? What the hell does it even mean to have a "best" shooter?

Sweeping generalizations seek to reduce innovations and differences down to some arbitary numeric value, which would then be easily ranked and thus fulfill your desire to play "only the best". Honestly, that is quite a sad way to evaluate games, or anything really.

In laymen terms - this thread is full of fail.

Datheron

Good post, good post. "It'd be like saying that since Half-life 2 was one of the best shooters on the PC, it renders games like F.E.A.R., S.T.A.L.K.E.R., Crysis, Bioshock, and Battlefield moot." Yea. That's exactly right. With the possible exception of Crysis and Bioshock, because they are next-gen and I haven't played them. But yes, you hit the nail on the head. The lesser games always play second fiddle. However: I am not saying the others aren't good enough to play, just that I don't always play them. I quite enjoyed Battlefield 1942 even though I knew it wasn't the best game on the market. Fear was an enjoyable game, and I knew it didn't hold a candle to HL2. I did, however, play them. I don't evaluate every single game based on nothing more than scores (they are sometimes drastically wrong: Ocampo gave Half-Life 2 a sickening 9.2). I play lots of games that didn't even get 9.0's and I still think they deserve them (Warhammer Dawn of War). But my basic argument stands: With respect to consoles especially, the best games determine my dicision on whether or not to buy it.

Oh, and the guy with Master Chief in his avatar: If you spent a whole thirty minutes reading, then you'd have come up with something better to argue with and also you'd have seen the part where I completely agreed that what I've been saying is entirely my own opinion.

Good post, good post. "It'd be like saying that since Half-life 2 was one of the best shooters on the PC, it renders games like F.E.A.R., S.T.A.L.K.E.R., Crysis, Bioshock, and Battlefield moot." Yea. That's exactly right. With the possible exception of Crysis and Bioshock, because they are next-gen and I haven't played them. But yes, you hit the nail on the head. The lesser games always play second fiddle. However: I am not saying the others aren't good enough to play, just that I don't always play them. I quite enjoyed Battlefield 1942 even though I knew it wasn't the best game on the market. Fear was an enjoyable game, and I knew it didn't hold a candle to HL2. I did, however, play them. I don't evaluate every single game based on nothing more than scores (they are sometimes drastically wrong: Ocampo gave Half-Life 2 a sickening 9.2). I play lots of games that didn't even get 9.0's and I still think they deserve them (Warhammer Dawn of War). But my basic argument stands: With respect to consoles especially, the best games determine my dicision on whether or not to buy it.Sushbag88

Like I said previously - that's a sad way to evaluate games.

Or, if you look at it from another perspective: I find that people enjoy doing things that they're good at, and if you agree thta different people are good at different things, you can make the connection that people have different games which they're good (or "best") at and thus would like different genres of games.

The difficulty, again, is that these genre labels are an oversimplification of a very diverse and complex marketplace of games. For someone who enjoys squad-based games, the Tribes-Battlefield-Quake Wars type of games would be the "best" for them, even as they (as you do) recognize the inherit goodness of other genres; it's just not the "best" for them, whereas someone more in tune with story telling would be better suited for HL-F.E.A.R.-Bioshock. When someone like me plays both subgenres, I cannot say one is better than the other or that one "wins".

Apply such a standard to your post, and it's apparent that 360 games and PS3 games aren't similar enough for this kind of judgement. PGR+Forza > GT? What if I care about arcade racers like Burnout or NFS or Wipeout or Ridge Racer? If "winning" even means anything, to do a thorough job would be to try to figure out how these games overlap and then figure out if one console has more features in games that the other one doesn't, and even then you can argue about the package as a whole (e.g., RPGs: one with great battles + one with great story won't provide as good of an experience as one with good battles *and* story).

Given that the PS3 is the Dreamcast of this console generation, Sony should take a leaf out of Sega's book: Pack their bags, discontinue the console, cease all game development, and start cutting their losses and working on a new platform for next time. Maybe then they can beat Microsoft to market in 2010 or something.

I mean for a while it was funny. It was the joke of the gaming community: The fact that Sony was just shooting itself in the face repeatedly, at every damn turn. But now, it's been obvious for a while that in terms of the current console war Microsoft has already won. But even though they have, couldn't Sony have still at least tried? But no, they continue their reign of mediocrity and suicidal industry moves. And so it's not even funny, it's almost old hat.

Consider E3 2007. As many of you pointed out, and with no small amount of truth I'll admit, Sony had to wow the industry and the gamers at this year's E3. They HAD to. We pretty much knew that the rest of the year is a given for the 360, and that Sony already had a slim chance at competing this holiday. But now, not only do we know for sure that Sony has absolutely no chance (0%) at competing with anyone (especially, I don't know, Microsoft) this holiday season, they haven't even set themselves up properly for 2008 like they should have at E3. Are you kidding me, Sony? Are you trying to lose? I mean clearly the only real game the PS3 has ever had surely would allow Sony to compete at Christmas. Oh wait, it's been delayed. I actually didn't see that coming, and I'm usually good with this sort of thing. Now instead of one game (MGS4 that is) the PS3 has exactly no games. One may argue, "But wait, that's just 2007." Gotcha covered. You realize that 2008 is now Sony's last stand? With a mixed lineup of a bunch of non-exclusives and perhaps 3 or so actual exclusives, the PS3 is rallying in 2008 like it's the Alamo. MGS4, Killzone, Haze, and then the non-exclusives which will definitely not sway anyone. It's not even like the PS3 has RE5 or SH5, because if those had been exclusive I'd have to buy one wouldn't I. But even those are gone! Is Sony really banking on those 2 or 3 exclusives to carry them for 2008? When people are sitting at home comfortably playing Halo 3, GTA4, Assassin's Creed, Call of Duty 4, Bioshock, Mass Effect, and whatever else the 360 has, does anyone here honestly believe that a one of them will consider heading out to spend $600 on anything but more 360 games or perhaps computer hardware to play Crysis/UT3/TF2? It's humorous to even consider such a possibility. And Sony needed this E3. E3 2007 was huge for them. And guess what we got? A delay of MGS4 and, even better, news that Konami might take MGS4 to the 360, and even better, news that the much-touted $100 price cut wasn't much of a price cut at all. What? The one thing that might have sold them a few extra PS3's and Sony is actually publicly admitting that the whole price cut was just to get rid of inventory on a console that, like the original $500 variant, they are phasing out? What kind of backhanded move is that? This is a joke. They're done.

Maybe some of you are confused still, perhaps some of the younger members on these boards (I've seen quite a few) are still defending their VCR-looking console to the death. And to you I will give this one thing: I'll still probably buy a PS3 before the war is out. Why not, they still have SOME exclusives. But that's all I'll give you. I'll give you that I might still buy one just because my love of games exceeds my love of predicting industry trends and watching as they are fulfilled before my eyes. But make no mistake: This is the Dreamcast of this generation. Which is why I suggested that Sony, in order to make the logical move, should back out of the console race. They can still keep the PSP and PS2 in production I'd say, but the PS3 has failed to such an extent that it's bleak future, which is just another guarantee that Sony needs to go pick a quiet spot to die, is something that Sony is actually trying to confront as if things will magically turn around in 2008 or any subsequent year. Sony is actually throwing more money into it, in an attempt to play somegame of charades with the public. "We're doing fine because we say we are." I lold', etc.

This isn't just a Sony issue, Nintendo fans. Don't make the mistake of thinking the Wii is an attractive substitute for a PS3. I'd rather buy one of the black paper weights from Sony than fork over cash for something called a Wii. The 360 is rocking in game selection, and, contrary to not-so-popular-but-still-prevalent belief, it ALWAYS has! The 360 launch was awesome, they had some of their best games to date on that freaking launch. And it's only gotten better from there. I knew that the 360 was something to buy right from launch (even though I waited a few months anyway) and I certainly never thought of Microsoft as needing to do anything to make itself more presentable to me as a consumer. They did virtually everything right, a few hardware issues aside. Their console has the best games, but come on: It even looks cool. The controller is fantastic, the interface is well integrated with the guide button, the downloadable content is icing on the cake, I mean come on. The 360 is doing amazing in games at this point in it's life, and holiday 2007 is like sex in video game form, in terms of the lineup that is. It's not like it's the more attractive buying option for gamers now, it will be for the foreseeable future. The PS3 and Wii? Their games are non-existent and laughable, respectively.

I may be digressing, so here's a brief conclusion: Sony is done. And, while we're on the subject of defunct gaming companies, Nintendo isn't even trying to do anything in terms of games at this point. Financially they may be selling consoles, but their lineup is jokingly barren and their installed base isn't up to that of the 360's yet. But back to Sony: The reality of the Dreamcast-like nature of the PS3 is growing daily. I wouldn't be surprised if, in three years or so, people are looking back and saying, of the PS3: "Oh that? Yea it was kind of a failed experiment by Sony. Had impressive hardware at first, but not enough games ended up coming out for it and, well, the 360 just destroyed it. I kinda liked it, but eventually even I came to realize that it was a waste of money compared to it's competition. A pity, really, considering the PS2 was so great. Oh well."

Sushbag88

[QUOTE="Sushbag88"]Good post, good post. "It'd be like saying that since Half-life 2 was one of the best shooters on the PC, it renders games like F.E.A.R., S.T.A.L.K.E.R., Crysis, Bioshock, and Battlefield moot." Yea. That's exactly right. With the possible exception of Crysis and Bioshock, because they are next-gen and I haven't played them. But yes, you hit the nail on the head. The lesser games always play second fiddle. However: I am not saying the others aren't good enough to play, just that I don't always play them. I quite enjoyed Battlefield 1942 even though I knew it wasn't the best game on the market. Fear was an enjoyable game, and I knew it didn't hold a candle to HL2. I did, however, play them. I don't evaluate every single game based on nothing more than scores (they are sometimes drastically wrong: Ocampo gave Half-Life 2 a sickening 9.2). I play lots of games that didn't even get 9.0's and I still think they deserve them (Warhammer Dawn of War). But my basic argument stands: With respect to consoles especially, the best games determine my dicision on whether or not to buy it.Datheron

Like I said previously - that's a sad way to evaluate games.

Or, if you look at it from another perspective: I find that people enjoy doing things that they're good at, and if you agree thta different people are good at different things, you can make the connection that people have different games which they're good (or "best") at and thus would like different genres of games.

The difficulty, again, is that these genre labels are an oversimplification of a very diverse and complex marketplace of games. For someone who enjoys squad-based games, the Tribes-Battlefield-Quake Wars type of games would be the "best" for them, even as they (as you do) recognize the inherit goodness of other genres; it's just not the "best" for them, whereas someone more in tune with story telling would be better suited for HL-F.E.A.R.-Bioshock. When someone like me plays both subgenres, I cannot say one is better than the other or that one "wins".

Apply such a standard to your post, and it's apparent that 360 games and PS3 games aren't similar enough for this kind of judgement. PGR+Forza > GT? What if I care about arcade racers like Burnout or NFS or Wipeout or Ridge Racer? If "winning" even means anything, to do a thorough job would be to try to figure out how these games overlap and then figure out if one console has more features in games that the other one doesn't, and even then you can argue about the package as a whole (e.g., RPGs: one with great battles + one with great story won't provide as good of an experience as one with good battles *and* story).

Datheron just owned sushi boy. Hard.

Given that the PS3 is the Dreamcast of this console generation, Sony should take a leaf out of Sega's book: Pack their bags, discontinue the console, cease all game development, and start cutting their losses and working on a new platform for next time. Maybe then they can beat Microsoft to market in 2010 or something.

I mean for a while it was funny. It was the joke of the gaming community: The fact that Sony was just shooting itself in the face repeatedly, at every damn turn. But now, it's been obvious for a while that in terms of the current console war Microsoft has already won. But even though they have, couldn't Sony have still at least tried? But no, they continue their reign of mediocrity and suicidal industry moves. And so it's not even funny, it's almost old hat.

Consider E3 2007. As many of you pointed out, and with no small amount of truth I'll admit, Sony had to wow the industry and the gamers at this year's E3. They HAD to. We pretty much knew that the rest of the year is a given for the 360, and that Sony already had a slim chance at competing this holiday. But now, not only do we know for sure that Sony has absolutely no chance (0%) at competing with anyone (especially, I don't know, Microsoft) this holiday season, they haven't even set themselves up properly for 2008 like they should have at E3. Are you kidding me, Sony? Are you trying to lose? I mean clearly the only real game the PS3 has ever had surely would allow Sony to compete at Christmas. Oh wait, it's been delayed. I actually didn't see that coming, and I'm usually good with this sort of thing. Now instead of one game (MGS4 that is) the PS3 has exactly no games. One may argue, "But wait, that's just 2007." Gotcha covered. You realize that 2008 is now Sony's last stand? With a mixed lineup of a bunch of non-exclusives and perhaps 3 or so actual exclusives, the PS3 is rallying in 2008 like it's the Alamo. MGS4, Killzone, Haze, and then the non-exclusives which will definitely not sway anyone. It's not even like the PS3 has RE5 or SH5, because if those had been exclusive I'd have to buy one wouldn't I. But even those are gone! Is Sony really banking on those 2 or 3 exclusives to carry them for 2008? When people are sitting at home comfortably playing Halo 3, GTA4, Assassin's Creed, Call of Duty 4, Bioshock, Mass Effect, and whatever else the 360 has, does anyone here honestly believe that a one of them will consider heading out to spend $600 on anything but more 360 games or perhaps computer hardware to play Crysis/UT3/TF2? It's humorous to even consider such a possibility. And Sony needed this E3. E3 2007 was huge for them. And guess what we got? A delay of MGS4 and, even better, news that Konami might take MGS4 to the 360, and even better, news that the much-touted $100 price cut wasn't much of a price cut at all. What? The one thing that might have sold them a few extra PS3's and Sony is actually publicly admitting that the whole price cut was just to get rid of inventory on a console that, like the original $500 variant, they are phasing out? What kind of backhanded move is that? This is a joke. They're done.

Maybe some of you are confused still, perhaps some of the younger members on these boards (I've seen quite a few) are still defending their VCR-looking console to the death. And to you I will give this one thing: I'll still probably buy a PS3 before the war is out. Why not, they still have SOME exclusives. But that's all I'll give you. I'll give you that I might still buy one just because my love of games exceeds my love of predicting industry trends and watching as they are fulfilled before my eyes. But make no mistake: This is the Dreamcast of this generation. Which is why I suggested that Sony, in order to make the logical move, should back out of the console race. They can still keep the PSP and PS2 in production I'd say, but the PS3 has failed to such an extent that it's bleak future, which is just another guarantee that Sony needs to go pick a quiet spot to die, is something that Sony is actually trying to confront as if things will magically turn around in 2008 or any subsequent year. Sony is actually throwing more money into it, in an attempt to play somegame of charades with the public. "We're doing fine because we say we are." I lold', etc.

This isn't just a Sony issue, Nintendo fans. Don't make the mistake of thinking the Wii is an attractive substitute for a PS3. I'd rather buy one of the black paper weights from Sony than fork over cash for something called a Wii. The 360 is rocking in game selection, and, contrary to not-so-popular-but-still-prevalent belief, it ALWAYS has! The 360 launch was awesome, they had some of their best games to date on that freaking launch. And it's only gotten better from there. I knew that the 360 was something to buy right from launch (even though I waited a few months anyway) and I certainly never thought of Microsoft as needing to do anything to make itself more presentable to me as a consumer. They did virtually everything right, a few hardware issues aside. Their console has the best games, but come on: It even looks cool. The controller is fantastic, the interface is well integrated with the guide button, the downloadable content is icing on the cake, I mean come on. The 360 is doing amazing in games at this point in it's life, and holiday 2007 is like sex in video game form, in terms of the lineup that is. It's not like it's the more attractive buying option for gamers now, it will be for the foreseeable future. The PS3 and Wii? Their games are non-existent and laughable, respectively.

I may be digressing, so here's a brief conclusion: Sony is done. And, while we're on the subject of defunct gaming companies, Nintendo isn't even trying to do anything in terms of games at this point. Financially they may be selling consoles, but their lineup is jokingly barren and their installed base isn't up to that of the 360's yet. But back to Sony: The reality of the Dreamcast-like nature of the PS3 is growing daily. I wouldn't be surprised if, in three years or so, people are looking back and saying, of the PS3: "Oh that? Yea it was kind of a failed experiment by Sony. Had impressive hardware at first, but not enough games ended up coming out for it and, well, the 360 just destroyed it. I kinda liked it, but eventually even I came to realize that it was a waste of money compared to it's competition. A pity, really, considering the PS2 was so great. Oh well."

Sushbag88

What kind of weed are u smoking man? This is waste of thread space.

wall of text. i'd read it but from the first few sentences i realized your whole post was going to be filled with nothing but fanboy babbling.

Sorry I had to edit my post, Gamespot forums likes to squeeze words togther. Also, sorry if it's long. How am I supposed to sum up the failure of such magnitude in a post of anything but reasonably large size?

Sushbag88

If all your posts are like that, I'd say you're quite good at failures of great magnitude.

Huh?

So now that Sony keeps wowing the gaming community at every conference they gave in recent months and even sceptical members of the press admit that Sony keeps pumping up impressive stuff... NOW you come to claim that the PS3 is done?

If you wrote this post a year ago, yeah okay.

But after this E3?

Sorry man, but I think you're far off. Sony might not claim the 1 place this generation, but they are faaaaaaaar from being done. There's too much goodness on the way.

http://www.1up.com/do/feature?cId=3145154

i shall spread this everytime these kinda topic happen :D

darkjounin

LOL that's hilarious. But the next page shows 10 reasons Microsoft owned where Sega choked.

[QUOTE="Art_424"]I agree with your post, but can you make your speech a little bit shorter...???, I stoped reading it after the fisrt paragraph..zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzMikeE21286

how can you agree, you yourself admitted you only read the first paragraph :|

Because some people think PS3 is failure even it does well. They agree with bashing PS3, nothing else.

The poster is delusional much like the people who say MS is going to discontinue the X360 next year.

Given that the PS3 is the Dreamcast of this console generation, Sony should take a leaf out of Sega's book: Pack their bags, discontinue the console, cease all game development, and start cutting their losses and working on a new platform for next time. Maybe then they can beat Microsoft to market in 2010 or something.

Sushbag88

I couldn't agree more. It's pathetic Cows still have no good exclusive games, and they're telling people to wait. Why the hell would I spend $600 to wait? Like you said, 360 had great games at launch, 360 owners didn't need to wait a year. Or two. And the best 360 games are yet to come. Meanwhile, Wii is full of shovelware and ports, what a waste. The clear winner this gen, games wise, will be the 360. Most likely sales wise too. If you don't think games like Halo 3, GTA IV, and Mass Effect won't widen the sales gap between 360 and Wii, you're an idiot.

[QUOTE="Sushbag88"]

Given that the PS3 is the Dreamcast of this console generation, Sony should take a leaf out of Sega's book: Pack their bags, discontinue the console, cease all game development, and start cutting their losses and working on a new platform for next time. Maybe then they can beat Microsoft to market in 2010 or something.

V_Isle

I couldn't agree more. It's pathetic Cows still have no good exclusive games, and they're telling people to wait. Why the hell would I spend $600 to wait? Like you said, 360 had great games at launch, 360 owners didn't need to wait a year. Or two. And the best 360 games are yet to come. Meanwhile, Wii is full of shovelware and ports, what a waste. The clear winner this gen, games wise, will be the 360. Most likely sales wise too. If you don't think games like Halo 3, GTA IV, and Mass Effect won't widen the sales gap between 360 and Wii, you're an idiot.

You're talking as if this generation ends this year already.

Nobody says you have to spend 600 bucks to wait for games to come. How about waiting to spend the 600 bucks when the games are eventually there? And I hope that you have followed the news, cause the games will start rolling in starting August / September.

[QUOTE="MikeE21286"]

[QUOTE="Art_424"]I agree with your post, but can you make your speech a little bit shorter...???, I stoped reading it after the fisrt paragraph..zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzdarthogre

how can you agree, you yourself admitted you only read the first paragraph :|

Because some people think PS3 is failure even it does well. They agree with bashing PS3, nothing else.

The poster is delusional much like the people who say MS is going to discontinue the X360 next year.

Define "does well"... SPECIFICALLY... no sony-pr-spin....

http://ce.seekingalpha.com/article/42455

interesting read if you have the time.

[QUOTE="V_Isle"][QUOTE="Sushbag88"]

Given that the PS3 is the Dreamcast of this console generation, Sony should take a leaf out of Sega's book: Pack their bags, discontinue the console, cease all game development, and start cutting their losses and working on a new platform for next time. Maybe then they can beat Microsoft to market in 2010 or something.

Nightflash28

I couldn't agree more. It's pathetic Cows still have no good exclusive games, and they're telling people to wait. Why the hell would I spend $600 to wait? Like you said, 360 had great games at launch, 360 owners didn't need to wait a year. Or two. And the best 360 games are yet to come. Meanwhile, Wii is full of shovelware and ports, what a waste. The clear winner this gen, games wise, will be the 360. Most likely sales wise too. If you don't think games like Halo 3, GTA IV, and Mass Effect won't widen the sales gap between 360 and Wii, you're an idiot.

You're talking as if this generation ends this year already.

Nobody says you have to spend 600 bucks to wait for games to come. How about waiting to spend the 600 bucks when the games are eventually there? And I hope that you have followed the news, cause the games will start rolling in starting August / September.

So I'll save $600 and play good games right now, on my 360.

[QUOTE="Sushbag88"]

Given that the PS3 is the Dreamcast of this console generation, Sony should take a leaf out of Sega's book: Pack their bags, discontinue the console, cease all game development, and start cutting their losses and working on a new platform for next time. Maybe then they can beat Microsoft to market in 2010 or something.

V_Isle

I couldn't agree more. It's pathetic Cows still have no good exclusive games, and they're telling people to wait. Why the hell would I spend $600 to wait? Like you said, 360 had great games at launch, 360 owners didn't need to wait a year. Or two. And the best 360 games are yet to come. Meanwhile, Wii is full of shovelware and ports, what a waste. The clear winner this gen, games wise, will be the 360. Most likely sales wise too. If you don't think games like Halo 3, GTA IV, and Mass Effect won't widen the sales gap between 360 and Wii, you're an idiot.

dude do you even know what your talking about...

1. the PS3 is the Dreamcast of this generation? Hmm I believe I remember specifically the DC coming out before the PS2, like the 360 did, and it sold well....and the PS2 came out later, like the PS3, started slow and gained momentum...so basically your a complete moron or you werent around to experience it... with that said, the DC was a great system and I loved it.... but so was the PS2

2. I have both a 360 and a PS3. I bought a 360 at launch. The launch games were not really good. Resistance and PD:Z are close but Resistance is a better game IMO. Right now I agree that 360 has more good games but it had a year head start.... really they are at equal points in the gaming cycle at their respective times... a year ago there wasnt much to play on the 360 except for GRAW and Prey (which wasnt even that good) and then 360 got GeoW..... which is awfully similar to PS3 getting UT3 in November... so the systems are at different times in their life cycles

3. Killzone 2 looks to blow me away.... I am more pumped for that game than MGS4... it is simply the best looking game I have ever seen.... I hope they deliver on the gameplay

Nah they need to release a bunch of crappy add ons that are requierd to play some not so great games. create confusion about the consoles by making a billion differnt SKUs. Get the US and Japan branch of the company to get completly differnt views of how to go forward.

Then release the PS4 with out a release date and just have it appear on store shelves.

Then when all their money is gone they need to release a last effort that is doomed before it's even released due to their lack of funds.

Then go out of console making and just make money on software.

Thats how ya go the Sega route :P

If you want to look at it from Forbes.com point of view, Microsoft has a market value of 275.85 billion and Sony has a market value of 52.14 billion. They rank Microsoft at 66 and Sony at 164 out of allpublic companies in the world. Microsoft has a huge advantage in its wealth and that more then anything will allow it to beat out the Sony. Microsoft can afford a lot more mistakes then Sony can.

Another thing is from what I remember when the Xbox came out everyone thought about how it wouldn't make it and no one would buy it. However, because of Microsoft's enormous wealth they could keep the Xbox on the market long enough to keep trying different ideas and putting out new games and eventually people started to take a interest in the Xbox.

In my oppionion it may not be who has the better system, both systems seem to be fairlyclose to one another,it will probably be who can afford to try a new idea and see if it fails or succeeds. With Microsoft'swealth they can alsoafford to paycompanies more money for them to make games for their console, which allows them to take the market. Plus a company making a game would see that Microsofts system won't be going out, because of their wealth,where theSony's might be, this would hurt Sony just as much as anything else.As of right now Microsoft has a clear advantage when it comes to this and this is what will allow them to take over the market from Sony.