[QUOTE="Raymundo_Manuel"][QUOTE="helwa1988"]Honestly the problem is their fan base. Most of them are mindless drones who will buy and support anything and everything Sony makes. Even if it means ripping them off. If Sony fanboys weren't so rabid Sony wouldn't get away with half the stuff they do. Back ps1 and ps2 days fans didn't take crap. But nowadays they take anything.carljohnson3456
Yah, it seems Sony fans have been cheering Sony on this whole gen whether it be the removal of BC only to replace it with $40 HD remakes, removing other features, online passes, rip-offs like the Move, and spending $50 for a coupon book.
I'd like to respond to you message entirely by saying a few things. The removal of backwards BC? I get the hatred, but the current PS3 is STILL compatible with PS1 games, and $40 HD remakes arent only happening on the PS3. You talk about removing features... consider this. I bought a 360 in 2006 when the 20 GB (really 13 GB) HDD was $100 freaking dollars. There was no HDMI output back then. No larger hard drives. Not to mention the HARDWARE WAS ATROCIOUS. Online passes? Are you kidding me? XBOX Live costs $60 a year and you're going to complain about an online pass??? Rip-offs like Move? What about Kinect?? Which has yet to spawn a quality game? And has JUST RECENTLY been added as a novelty to quality games like Mass Effect 3??? And that coupon book you speak of pays for it'sself in two months easily. Opposed to XBOX LIVE, which essentially makes you pay for free PC features for your Xbox and online gaming. Sorry to sound like a fanboy, but I've owned an Xbox this gen and quite frankly, it's a solid console, but as a consumer, I didnt feel like was worth it in my trouble. Yeah, I'd say you're a bit out of line, Raymundo.
First of all, HD Collections are for both the Xbox 360 and PS3, it's just that the PS3 has a lot more exclusive HD Collections because they're Sony owned I.P. franchises. I own some PS2 consoles, and a couple PS3 consoles, one of which is a fully functional 60 gig that is backwards compatible with PS2 games. I have all the hardware I need to play PS2 games, but I still choose to buy HD Collections. Take ICO and Shadow of the Colossus HD Collection for example. It not only has increased resolution, but the framerate is drastically increased and consistent to boot. That was one of the major flaws of the original games, framerate. Then you have additional features like being able to control Yorda in co-op after you complete ICO, along with trophy support. Not to mention ICO is a pretty hard to find game on PS2 in good condition. Trust me, there are many, many reasons to buy these HD collections, even if you have PS2 consoles, even if you have backwards compatible PS3 consoles, and even if you already have the games. These HD Collections are the definitive versions of the best games from last generation. Gamers **** over this kinda stuff.
To touch on the removal of BC a little bit more, yeah, my Slim PS3 doesn't play PS2 games, but every PS3 SKU plays PS1 games. The PS2 console is still readily available on store shelves. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the PS2 just recently stop being manufactured? Partially because of the Tsunami in Japan? If any company has a reason to exclude BC, it's Sony. It's not like you see Gamecube or Xbox original being manufactured, why should Sony compete with themselves? Not to mention, Microsoft gave up on backwards compatibility support a long time ago. They achieved backwards compatibility through software emulation, and only a select number of original Xbox games were even patchable and playable on the Xbox 360. Microsoft had plans to extend the BC library even further, but gave up on it. As for Nintendo, you do know that a new Wii SKU/model was released, right? The new Wii console released a bit over a year ago is horizontal only, and it does not have backwards compatibility. So Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo have all given up on backwards compatibility. I say good riddance, because it's just an unneeded feature anyways. Games play the best on their native console.
I agree that online passes sort of suck, but it is their way of combating used game sales. I initially had an issue with online passes because I thought they would affect game value which would suck from a collecting standpoint, but then I thought a bit more on the subject. Eventually, servers go down for every game, so if 10 years from now you were unable to play a game online because of the lack of an online pass, it wouldn't really matter anyways because chances are the servers for the game would already be shut down. Just look at the servers for last generation games, all shut down. Hell, even games like Demon's Souls that released this generation have already had their servers shut down.
You say that the Move is a rip-off, but it's a completely optional peripheral. It's compatible with core games like Resistance, SOCOM and Killzone, so if you want to use it, by all means, use it. It's not a rip-off because it's not mandatory. Plus, it's not like Sony is backing the thing 100% like Microsoft is doing with the Kinect. Sony's focus is making games designed for the DualShock 3, while Microsoft's focus is making games for the Kinect. Basically, if you're a PS3 owner, you don't need the Move for anything. If you're an Xbox 360 owner, you basically need a Kinect to play any of the upcoming 360 exclusives. That alone makes the Kinect far more of a rip-off than Move.
As for the $50 dollar coupon book, again, completely optional. Signing up for PlayStation Plus is completely optional. You still get online services for free, but everyone that I've talked to has said that PSPlus is an excellent deal. With PSPlus, you actually get major discounts and cool incentives for being a member, whereas with Xbox Live, you're paying just for the bare minimum feature of playing your games online. So which exactly is the rip-off again?
Log in to comment