I was doing a lot of research lately, about 5th and 6th gen and boy did the SEGA and Nintendo fan base hated Sony. Corporations themselves too.
Sony was perceived as a company which aggressively buys it's way through the business with numerous marketing deals and third party exclusivity. What is more, Sony were total dicks too, ambushed Nintendo 64 launch by slashing the price of PS1 by 100 bucks a week before and launching a nationwide TV campaign a day prior to N64 US launch. Same with Dreamcast launch, the reason it failed even if it had been breaking world records at first? Sony created mythology that PS2 will deliver CGI/FMV grade graphics comparable to Toy Story (first mention in November 1998), will push 50 times more polygons than Dreamcast (they really said so) and that its CPU will be 3-4 times more powerful than Pentium 3 (hint: it was the other way round), and so on...but ultimately they had virtually unlimited amount of money to spend on marketing, having lots of celebrities behind them, and securing third party relationships and exclusivity. Former SEGA execs said they didn't have that kind of a financial muscle for that.
Thus more than half a year prior to PS2 launch at the meeting of investors, SEGA had anticipated it would be crushed because of unstoppable hype (and higher customer attachment to their brand). And it was. And by a console with one of the most lackluster not only launch but probably the first year of release. And destroyed a console with the most abundant launch ever.
Btw it's hard to imagine Sony being perceived as such from today's perspective but it's really true. Just dig up some video gaming forum posts from late 90s / early noughties.
Creating such a successful brand and ushering a new era of gamers did not come without alienating other groups of people.
I'd have even quoted something but I'm on my phone and I'm afraid the tab with this thread would expire.
Whatever you say. There are various sources, many revisionists, that claim things one thing or the other about other gaming companies.
I've read Sega fanboys take on Nintendo, Nintendo fanboys take on Sega, Sega Fanboys take on Sony, Nintendo fanboys take on Sony, Sony fanboys take on Xbox, Sony fanboys take on Sega, Xbox fanboys take on Sony, Xbox fanboys take on Nintendo, PC fanboys take on every group, Sony fanboys take on Nintendo, Nintendo fanboys take on Xbox, etc, etc, etc.
I don't have to rely on 3rd party testimonials on what those eras were like because I was already there. I do recall there being vitriol across the board for Sega, Sony, and Nintendo back in the day though. Experience and culture will change the lenses on which we view the past.
What's important and relevant though is the modern eras. Last I checked it was May 18th, 2016 and that being the case, I'm going to pay attention to what the companies are doing today.
@SolidTy: I was a hardcore cow back then so I had voice of reason filtered out but ever since that phase stopped, I'm able to recall the gaming press of those times slamming Saturn as shit and N64 as a kiddy console at every step they could while simultaneously praising Sony.
I even remember some Sony fanboy editor that gave Bugs 2 on Saturn a 2/10... :/
Nintendo and Sega fanboys hated Sony because Sony was kicking their favorite companies incompetent asses. People hate M$ because of all the shit they tried to pull in 2013. They wanted to force you to "check-in" once every 24 hours even if all you wanted to do was play a single player game on a physical disc. They wanted to take away your ability to resell that disc. They wanted Kinect to be mandatory for the Xbone to even function which would have created huge privacy issues. On top of all that they wanted you to pay them $500 for all of that crap in addition to weaker specs than the cheaper PS4. The worst thing Sony ever did was tell you to get a 2nd job.
Well when you're not the market leader its easy to be bitter and want to throw shade. Not Sony's fault that the mass has chosen their consoles over others for 3 gens now. Maybe said companies should find out what Sony's secret recipe is and try and outdo them.
Well when you're not the market leader its easy to be bitter and want to throw shade. Not Sony's fault that the mass has chosen their consoles over others for 3 gens now. Maybe said companies should find out what Sony's secret recipe is and try and outdo them.
Nintendo and Sega fanboys hated Sony because Sony was kicking their favorite companies incompetent asses. People hate M$ because of all the shit they tried to pull in 2013. They wanted to force you to "check-in" once every 24 hours even if all you wanted to do was play a single player game on a physical disc. They wanted to take away your ability to resell that disc. They wanted Kinect to be mandatory for the Xbone to even function which would have created huge privacy issues. On top of all that they wanted you to pay them $500 for all of that crap in addition to weaker specs than the cheaper PS4. The worst thing Sony ever did was tell you to get a 2nd job.
A lot of the negative press for the Xbox One was exactly that, the press. Microsoft didn't fully explain their intentions to the media, and the media jumped to conclusions; and one thing you can be sure about when it comes to gamers, they take ANY bit of news and blow it up(ie: PS4k Neo). I'm just saying, I don't recall Microsoft ever saying "You will not be able to sell your used games, at all." Microsoft screwed the pooch on it's launch, but all they really needed to do was explain their vision better. Alas, it's now history and I'm happy with all my game consoles I've owned/currently own.
I know that the PS1 got more good games than the N64 and the Sega Saturn (especially in the US. I know that the PS2 got more good games than the Xbox and PS2. I would more or less argue that the PS3 got more exclusives I enjoyed last gen than the Xbox 360, but I guess that might change in the case of definitive multiplats like Bayonetta and Ninja Gaiden 2 (yeah I like my blood in my Ninja Gaiden 2, **** off). And in the case of the PS4, it's easily going to justify itself in the long run, where as the Xbox One really doesn't outside of one Halo game, which is the 7th fps entry in that franchise, 6th if we count the ones with mp, since that is the only part of that series I care for. And the WiiU, while having way better exclusives, is at the least I'd still much rather play Bayonetta 2 than Bloodborne (and chances are I'll like it more than Uncharted 4); is dead, and I'm sure in the long run the PS4 will easily have more good exclusives than the WiiU.
So whatever negative perception of Sony there is, and as many knocks as I can throw at them, by the end of the gen they justify their machine. Microsoft had two whole gens before this one to build up a competent first party, and they fucking didn't. Nintendo has had multiple generations to evolve their own ips, or start producing new killer apps for their audience that got older, and they don't. So kind of glad Sony's been as dominant as they have been, because even with my stance that most of Sony's first party sucks (and good god, they suck), I'd still come out thinking that the 3 of the last 4 gens, the Playstation console was the best pick. Hell there is a good enough argument for the PS3 with Valkyria, Demon's Souls, UC2, Journey, and a few others that it's 4 for 4.
I think that is just because they were the new kids on the block and nintendo and sega were jealous and probably worried by their success.
Even tbough ps1 and 2 were not even the most powerful consoles of their generation they were still the best. They offered the best gaming experiences for me and had all the best games with some obvious exceptions. Also until 360 came along nobody could match the playstation controller.
I loved the game cube but it wasnt the right response from nintendo. They should have made something more appealing and tried to get all the best games from sonys grasp. In my opinion they just rolled over and let sony dominate the market.
Xbox was the only true competion to sony since the original playstation launced in my opinion.for example people didnt want cartridges anymore like n64 had regardless of the games it had or its power. And dreamcast and oroginal xbox had terrible controllers.
Im a huge resident evil fan and got the gamecube mainly just for the exclusive resident evil games.
I was a Dreamcast guy, I remember rooting against the PS2. I think it's why I was so high on og Xbox, since it felt like an extension of the DC and I wanted MS to stick one in Sony's eye.
I was a Dreamcast guy, I remember rooting against the PS2. I think it's why I was so high on og Xbox, since it felt like an extension of the DC and I wanted MS to stick one in Sony's eye.
That was me except I wasn't a "Dreamcast" guy I was a complete "sega" guy. After halo 2's mega hype only to deliver a half ass campaign where MS was depending on you to buy into their XBL milkage to have the "real" experience in 2004 I stopped believing in the MS = Sega dream. Before this time I had never even touched a PlayStation controller.
After that disappointment, on top of the xbox game droughts waiting for one game that flopped for me, I caved and bought a PS2 with MGS3 and never looked back. Fanboyism can only take you so far as a gamer, I think a lot of xbox fanboys are feeling the effects of that this gen.
Its true, Sony must be stopped. Sony is a good copy company, but they lack innovation. Nintendo might not can compete money wise, but they can still destroy Sony and save the gaming world once again. Just got to be patient and wait for Samsung to run them dry.
I know that the PS1 got more good games than the N64 and the Sega Saturn (especially in the US. I know that the PS2 got more good games than the Xbox and PS2. I would more or less argue that the PS3 got more exclusives I enjoyed last gen than the Xbox 360, but I guess that might change in the case of definitive multiplats like Bayonetta and Ninja Gaiden 2 (yeah I like my blood in my Ninja Gaiden 2, **** off). And in the case of the PS4, it's easily going to justify itself in the long run, where as the Xbox One really doesn't outside of one Halo game, which is the 7th fps entry in that franchise, 6th if we count the ones with mp, since that is the only part of that series I care for. And the WiiU, while having way better exclusives, is at the least I'd still much rather play Bayonetta 2 than Bloodborne (and chances are I'll like it more than Uncharted 4); is dead, and I'm sure in the long run the PS4 will easily have more good exclusives than the WiiU.
So whatever negative perception of Sony there is, and as many knocks as I can throw at them, by the end of the gen they justify their machine. Microsoft had two whole gens before this one to build up a competent first party, and they fucking didn't. Nintendo has had multiple generations to evolve their own ips, or start producing new killer apps for their audience that got older, and they don't. So kind of glad Sony's been as dominant as they have been, because even with my stance that most of Sony's first party sucks (and good god, they suck), I'd still come out thinking that the 3 of the last 4 gens, the Playstation console was the best pick. Hell there is a good enough argument for the PS3 with Valkyria, Demon's Souls, UC2, Journey, and a few others that it's 4 for 4.
This is true- like, I personally would take the 360 over the PS3, or the N64 over the PS1, and hell, on some days, I would take the Gamecube over the PS2. Doesn't change the fact that Sony is now 4/4- they've delivered on the best console on the market for four generations straight, and they do it because they fundamentally understand the home console market. So, does this mean they are dominating? Let them. They earned it. When they fucked up, they had their ass kicked, and they still managed to pull back, because again, they are the most consistent player in the home console market.
I don't care if Sony bought their way in, or even if they were ruthlessly competitive- they've more than earned their keep at this point. Sega had three generations to get their shit together, they didn't, and they were driven out. Microsoft had 16 years to build up a first party and justify their console beyond leaning on third party games, they didn't, and now they're getting their ass kicked. Nintendo has had 25 years to understand that their games alone cannot keep their console viable, they fail to grasp this lesson, so their predicament, as much as I love Nintendo's games, is their fault- every player in the console market deserves where they are at right now, they earned their keep. Sony is at the top because they fundamentally understand the console market, and don't try to act too smart about it most of the times. They just deliver a straightforward, no bullshit product, and they support it for years and years to come. Flat out, PlayStation is the safest bet in the console market.
Just in the beginning of last gen we had we had Sony showing CGI videos saying that it was gameplay graphics.
Honestly I don't get why Sony as a corporation gets away with pretty much everything but kudos to them on how they managed to build their image through the years. In the end a great % of a brand is how it is perceived by the masses, and they did/do a superb job in that department.
I was doing a lot of research lately, about 5th and 6th gen and boy did the SEGA and Nintendo fan base hated Sony. Corporations themselves too.
Sony was perceived as a company which aggressively buys it's way through the business with numerous marketing deals and third party exclusivity. What is more, Sony were total dicks too, ambushed Nintendo 64 launch by slashing the price of PS1 by 100 bucks a week before and launching a nationwide TV campaign a day prior to N64 US launch. Same with Dreamcast launch, the reason it failed even if it had been breaking world records at first? Sony created mythology that PS2 will deliver CGI/FMV grade graphics comparable to Toy Story (first mention in November 1998), will push 50 times more polygons than Dreamcast (they really said so) and that its CPU will be 3-4 times more powerful than Pentium 3 (hint: it was the other way round), and so on...but ultimately they had virtually unlimited amount of money to spend on marketing, having lots of celebrities behind them, and securing third party relationships and exclusivity. Former SEGA execs said they didn't have that kind of a financial muscle for that.
Thus more than half a year prior to PS2 launch at the meeting of investors, SEGA had anticipated it would be crushed because of unstoppable hype (and higher customer attachment to their brand). And it was.
And by a console with one of the most lackluster not only launch but probably the first year of release. And destroyed a console with the most abundant launch ever.
Btw it's hard to imagine Sony being perceived as such from today's perspective but it's really true. Just dig up some video gaming forum posts from late 90s / early noughties.
Creating such a successful brand and ushering a new era of gamers did not come without alienating other groups of people.
I'd have even quoted something but I'm on my phone and I'm afraid the tab with this thread would expire.
Anyhow, what's your take?
I am going to need some quotes there with links for most of the garbage you claimed there.
1st link me to sony saying in 1998 that they would achieve toy story graphics with the PS2,MS did the same and the xbox sold like shit,so i don't think that was a reason even if true.
2-How did exactly sony bough its way into the console market.? Most PS games were not exclusive because sony had a deal but because it was good business,for developers i advice you to make even more investigation about how 3rd parties have to basically give up rights to Nintendo on the old Nes and Snes era,how Nintendo high ass Royalties punish hard many developers and how sony by simple having a more lenient way with royalties was able to secure more games.
3-Is call competition and by the time the N64 arrived the PS was close to 2 years out,so it was begging for a price drop already,and in fact it didn't undercut nintendo by $100 it did so by $50,the N64 was going to cost $249 not $299,so sony lower the price from $299 to $199,going under Nintendo already lower $249 price tap,so basically Nintendo was coming with a new console CHEAPER than the PS and sony simple answer back is call business as usual,and i didn't see you cry when MS dropped $150 dollars from November 2013 to November 2014 and gave people 2 free games including a hot new release setting a whole new precedent in the console market never have being new games from 3rd parties being given free,but i guess people see things depending on the color of the crystal we see through.
4-Please link me to that part about the 50 times more polygons,and all that crap you say there,an pentium 3 for gaming wasn't 3 times as fast as the EE in fact the EE beat it quite easy for gaming task remember EE wasn't for office it was for gaming,so sad was that pentium 3,that the fist specs for the xbox were 300mhz GPU and 600mhz CPU,but during testing the Pentium 3 had problems feeding the NV2A from Nvidia so the GPU was downclock and the CPU speed over clock to 733mhz,that Pentium 3 was great for running all purpose programs for gaming it just wasn't as good as the EE even that the EE was less than half the speed.
The fun things is that what you describe there almost everything MS did it to sony in 2000,from celebrities,to having unlimited money,to claim toy story graphics,claim the xbox had 3 times the in game performance of the PS2,basically everything yet MS loss horribly with the xbox against the PS2,not to mention paying and buying developers,Halo once was a PS2 and Mac only game,before MS bough bungie,Abes,dead or alive,Project Ghotam (AKA Metropolis Street Racer on Dreamcast) so basically everything you picture for sony there MS did it as well so how come MS loss and sony didn't.?
That bold part really make me laugh one of the most lackluster launch first year.? Hahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
How pathetic xbox fans can be and to think this is the same people defending the supper shitty xbox one launch,but hey lets go even further what the fu** the xbox 360 launched with.?
The biggest xbox 360 launch game was COD2 which was also on PC before the 360 even launch,PDZ,Kameo and a bunch of ports of PS2 and xbox other platforms,like NFS,King Kong and many other crap.
And many more this alone ^^ beat the 360 and xbox one offerings on launch,and this ^^ was when Gamespot was Gamespot before the whole Kane and lynch crap,and when reviewers were more objective about games than now.
Funny that you say the first year,the PS2 turn 1 in US on October 2001,bye that time,DMC,GTA3,GT3,Dark Claud and many other games were on the PS2 selection,in fact by December 2001 it also had FFX and MGS2 as well as many more,2001 is recorded in history as one of the best years for PS brand and gaming as well,Halo,PGR and Dead or alive 3,were receive by like 5 or 6 games with 90 or higher score on Holiday 2001.
GTA3 alone basically blasted anything the competition had.
Oh and this is ignoring what Nintendo did to Sony after sony completing the first PS for them,and they backstabbing them or Phillips which caused waves of discontent in Japan.
@Salt_The_Fries: Every company has gone through the good and bad in this business. No company has been perfect. SEGA, SONY, MICROSOFT & NINTENDO have had success and failures on different levels. This is why it's pretty senseless to take sides, as next gen may be completely different on who is success and who isn't. Just get the platform that has the games you enjoy playing and leave biased trolling and platform loyalist to the trolls.
Also don't forget that the xbox's gpu was pretty bandwidth starved since that 6.4Gb/s was shared by both the cpu/gpu.
@tormentos said:
@Salt_The_Fries said:
I was doing a lot of research lately, about 5th and 6th gen and boy did the SEGA and Nintendo fan base hated Sony. Corporations themselves too.
Sony was perceived as a company which aggressively buys it's way through the business with numerous marketing deals and third party exclusivity. What is more, Sony were total dicks too, ambushed Nintendo 64 launch by slashing the price of PS1 by 100 bucks a week before and launching a nationwide TV campaign a day prior to N64 US launch. Same with Dreamcast launch, the reason it failed even if it had been breaking world records at first? Sony created mythology that PS2 will deliver CGI/FMV grade graphics comparable to Toy Story (first mention in November 1998), will push 50 times more polygons than Dreamcast (they really said so) and that its CPU will be 3-4 times more powerful than Pentium 3 (hint: it was the other way round), and so on...but ultimately they had virtually unlimited amount of money to spend on marketing, having lots of celebrities behind them, and securing third party relationships and exclusivity. Former SEGA execs said they didn't have that kind of a financial muscle for that.
Thus more than half a year prior to PS2 launch at the meeting of investors, SEGA had anticipated it would be crushed because of unstoppable hype (and higher customer attachment to their brand). And it was.
And by a console with one of the most lackluster not only launch but probably the first year of release. And destroyed a console with the most abundant launch ever.
Btw it's hard to imagine Sony being perceived as such from today's perspective but it's really true. Just dig up some video gaming forum posts from late 90s / early noughties.
Creating such a successful brand and ushering a new era of gamers did not come without alienating other groups of people.
I'd have even quoted something but I'm on my phone and I'm afraid the tab with this thread would expire.
Anyhow, what's your take?
I am going to need some quotes there with links for most of the garbage you claimed there.
1st link me to sony saying in 1998 that they would achieve toy story graphics with the PS2,MS did the same and the xbox sold like shit,so i don't think that was a reason even if true.
2-How did exactly sony bough its way into the console market.? Most PS games were not exclusive because sony had a deal but because it was good business,for developers i advice you to make even more investigation about how 3rd parties have to basically give up rights to Nintendo on the old Nes and Snes era,how Nintendo high ass Royalties punish hard many developers and how sony by simple having a more lenient way with royalties was able to secure more games.
3-Is call competition and by the time the N64 arrived the PS was close to 2 years out,so it was begging for a price drop already,and in fact it didn't undercut nintendo by $100 it did so by $50,the N64 was going to cost $249 not $299,so sony lower the price from $299 to $199,going under Nintendo already lower $249 price tap,so basically Nintendo was coming with a new console CHEAPER than the PS and sony simple answer back is call business as usual,and i didn't see you cry when MS dropped $150 dollars from November 2013 to November 2014 and gave people 2 free games including a hot new release setting a whole new precedent in the console market never have being new games from 3rd parties being given free,but i guess people see things depending on the color of the crystal we see through.
4-Please link me to that part about the 50 times more polygons,and all that crap you say there,an pentium 3 for gaming wasn't 3 times as fast as the EE in fact the EE beat it quite easy for gaming task remember EE wasn't for office it was for gaming,so sad was that pentium 3,that the fist specs for the xbox were 300mhz GPU and 600mhz CPU,but during testing the Pentium 3 had problems feeding the NV2A from Nvidia so the GPU was downclock and the CPU speed over clock to 733mhz,that Pentium 3 was great for running all purpose programs for gaming it just wasn't as good as the EE even that the EE was less than half the speed.
The fun things is that what you describe there almost everything MS did it to sony in 2000,from celebrities,to having unlimited money,to claim toy story graphics,claim the xbox had 3 times the in game performance of the PS2,basically everything yet MS loss horribly with the xbox against the PS2,not to mention paying and buying developers,Halo once was a PS2 and Mac only game,before MS bough bungie,Abes,dead or alive,Project Ghotam (AKA Metropolis Street Racer on Dreamcast) so basically everything you picture for sony there MS did it as well so how come MS loss and sony didn't.?
That bold part really make me laugh one of the most lackluster launch first year.? Hahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
How pathetic xbox fans can be and to think this is the same people defending the supper shitty xbox one launch,but hey lets go even further what the fu** the xbox 360 launched with.?
The biggest xbox 360 launch game was COD2 which was also on PC before the 360 even launch,PDZ,Kameo and a bunch of ports of PS2 and xbox other platforms,like NFS,King Kong and many other crap.
And many more this alone ^^ beat the 360 and xbox one offerings on launch,and this ^^ was when Gamespot was Gamespot before the whole Kane and lynch crap,and when reviewers were more objective about games than now.
Funny that you say the first year,the PS2 turn 1 in US on October 2001,bye that time,DMC,GTA3,GT3,Dark Claud and many other games were on the PS2 selection,in fact by December 2001 it also had FFX and MGS2 as well as many more,2001 is recorded in history as one of the best years for PS brand and gaming as well,Halo,PGR and Dead or alive 3,were receive by like 5 or 6 games with 90 or higher score on Holiday 2001.
GTA3 alone basically blasted anything the competition had.
Oh and this is ignoring what Nintendo did to Sony after sony completing the first PS for them,and they backstabbing them or Phillips which caused waves of discontent in Japan.
I was a Dreamcast guy, I remember rooting against the PS2. I think it's why I was so high on og Xbox, since it felt like an extension of the DC and I wanted MS to stick one in Sony's eye.
You did it wrong. I was a SEGA fan....not just DC and I went Xbox, GC, PS2 to get the SEGA games they put on those THREE consoles. Buying one was getting 1/3 the SEGA games.
Log in to comment