Sony PS3

[Piraya]

Here is where you can post your thoughts on this system. You can make some comparisons between the systems but I will be doing a thread for upcoming systems like Nintendo Wii and current next gen console Xbox 360. Oh, and please no fanboy logic, opinions are fine but keep them clearly stated with a background of why you formulated that opinion. Keep in mind I will edit and/or delete unintelligent fanboy logic on both sides of this issue so please put together a well thought reason and not simply saying. Xbox pwnz or PS3 owns Microsoft hahahaha. Your post will be deleted.

[Claquesous]

I tell you one thing, I'm not paying $500 for a system no matter how much it "pwnz". If FF13 comes out only for PS3 I may have to buy it eventually but maybe not until a year or so down the line.

I bought PS2 only after the price fell to $150 for FFX which was $30 by that point.

[Piraya]

Here is my reasoning for not supporting playstation anymore. There will be multiple parts to this as I don't have time to type this completely in one sitting at work lol. Here is part 1 which will also be broken into a few parts, sorry.

Sony as a company is a hack, a thief if you will when coming up with new technology. Firstly, lets start with its CD feature. Many believe this was original and creative in which it was not. As far as Sony Playstation being started was only because Nintendo dropped them and decided against using them for development of a CD based console system. At the very least Nintendo was the groundbreaker for Sony concerning making a console using CD. Nintendo wasn't even the first visionary company to use CD instead of cartridges. Turbo-Graphics 16 back in 1989 was a CD based console. 3 years later in 1992 Sega released their add on to the sega genesis "sega cd" which was an attachment to the original sega genesis. Later they built a smaller version that came packaged together. 3do and jaguar 64 released systems based on CD in 1993. Here is a link to info regarding the Jaguar and another for the 3d0 Then Neo Geo jumped on the bandwagon in 1994 with their CD based system. Thats 5 consoles using CD vs. cartridge far before Sony's original Playstation One release Sept. 9, 1995. for release date and for hardware included in its first release. You can see that the controller button configuration is identical to that of Super Nintendo's controller with the a,b,c,d buttons shaped in a diamond, select and start in identical spots including the directional pad. The only real difference here is they added an additional set of shoulder buttons and called it a day. Completely unoriginal. Part 2 of why I believe sony is a hack and a thief and doesn't deserve the title as leader as until the "cell processor" they had not once lead the industry in innovation or creativity.

[Piraya]

Part 2

Continuing along the lines of playstation stealing ideas and basically being unoriginal lets discuss controllers. Playstations first generation controller was discussed a bit in my previous post. You have a link with the original playstation controller. Here is a link to the super nintendo controller if your memory is hazy on the button layout and general look. The button layout is identical with the exception of extra shoulder buttons and symbols in the place of letters on the playstation controller. Copying Nintendo doesn't end here. In June of 1997 Sony announced the release of its dual analog controller for the Playstation One. Revolutionary some would say...but who came up with using analog before them? Aside from joysticks and arcade games Nintendo 64's original controller release with the system used an analog on the center on its release in September of 1996. This copying and thievery doesn't end here. It continues even to the PS3. Nintendo had announced prior to e3 of their works on a motion sensitive controller. At e3 they were kind enough to showcase it and demo it. Guess who also came up with a motion sensitive controller. Thats right, Playstation 3. During e3 Sony demo'd their motion sensitive remote for all to see. Pathetic in my opinion.

Sony's attempt at providing an online entertainment. Copying Microsoft's Xbox Live in nearly every way possible. People argue Sony's is free where Xbox's costs money. That statement is untrue and with the slightest amount of research you will come to realize its untrue. Sites like Allakhazam and others have free sections and membership with a fee sections. This is the same for xbox live and for playstation's version. Xbox Live silver gives you access to many things in xbox live but xbox gold opens up all of its features for a low fee of $5.00 per month. I haven't heard much on end pricing structure of Sony's online but I do know there will be a paid version and a free version where the paid offers more things than the free version. This brings me to my third part which will come later today. Sony is doing and saying anything to get the market on their side...whether its the truth or not they don't care. Be it their online services being "free" to their system will be twice as powerful as the xbox 360 there are no punches held with this company. I just cannot support a company that can lie so much, get away with it to simply sling more mud later on.

[Elrick]

lol i didn't read your reasons, but i have money to burn so i'll buy it when it first comes out. either buy that or buy new car... not sure.. hmmm??

[Piraya]

Please don't post just to post in these threads. I'm trying to get an intellectual discussion going regarding the three systems. Opinions are fine but please give reasoning and back them up. Just stating something serves no purpose and accomplishes nothing.

[Claquesous]

Wow Piraya! Didn't your mother ever tell you, "if you can't say anything nice, then don't say anything at all." Your personal vendetta against Sony may be even deeper set and less reasonable than my personal vendetta against Microsoft.

Let me go over a little history of the console gaming industry as I see it.

Back in the 80s video gaming was a niche market with limited success by Atari until Nintendo came along and made video games mainstream. For about ten years Nintendo reigned supreme. For a while I would even call them a monopoly.

When Super Nintendo came out Nintendo carried on that dominance with limited competition from Sega Genesis. Later on TurboGraphics came along. All these systems were 16 bit and cartridge based.

After this generation there were a few failed attempts at a new generation such as Sega CD, Atari Jaguar and SNK's cartridge based 64 bit system: Neo-Geo. I played Neo-Geo. It was a 64 bit system in an era of 16 bit systems. Very high line, but massively expensive. ($200 just to buy a controller.)

The next true generation pitted Nintendo 64 against Sony's first foray into gaming with the Playstation. Sony was not the first to use a CD, nor necessarily the best. However, it was undoubtedly the first company that succeeded with CD gaming. I don't know if they succeeded because of clever marketing or finally figuring out a reasonable way to save games while using a read only media.

Whatever the reasons were Sony entered a market where Nintendo was the undisputed king and somehow displaced them. I don't remember hearing much hype before hand. To me it was very quiet and sudden until one day I woke up and everyone was saying Nintendo would've gone bankrupt on N64 if it weren't for GoldenEye. Sega on the other hand pretty much did go bankrupt with DreamCast, but that was mainly because a massive failure to predict piracy.

Moving on to the next generation. Sony Playstation 2 expanded it's lead while Nintendo shrank down to a fanboyish following with gamers that mainly played for Mario and Zelda. However, the new kid in town did make a bit of a splash. Microsoft came in with all the attitude and brash confidence they've had throughout their history. They tried to come in as a monopoly by immediately buying out the company that made Halo so it would only play on their system. They also bought RareSoft (maker of GoldenEye). However, the overconfidence worked against them to an extent. More importantly, they didn't have the library of games that PS2 had. The day that Microsoft launched, PS2 already had something like 400 more games for it just because of the PS1 backwards compatibility.

In effect, I would argue that PS2 beat XBox mainly because of the games. As you look through the history I'd say this is pretty accurate for every generation. The first generation was the lovable Italian plumber Mario, vs. Sonic the Hedgehog - an irritating platformer/racing game, vs. Bonk - a funny looking caveman that loves to head butt things. The next generation I think Nintendo got complacent with Mario and failed to extend their lead. (Although the 2 Zelda games for N64 are two of the best games ever made for any system.) I think a crippling blow landed by Sony was the move of Square from Nintendo to Sony. You might think this is just the FF fanboy in me, but FF is huge in Japan. I'm not sure if anything compares, but perhaps a new FF game is treated like a new Harry Potter book here. Final Fantasy 7 was one of the first games I can remember seeing a commercial for on TV and it looked like a movie the production value was so high.

A little bit about controllers. I really don't understand your point about original controllers. If you look at it, Nintendo, Turbo Grafx, and Neo Geo had the same controller. Then Super Nintendo, N64, Genesis, Jaguar (I think), Dreamcast, Gamecube, PS1, PS2, PS2, XBox, and XBox 360 all have the same controller. Then N64 and Wii have unique controllers. I listed N64 in two groups because it had two different uses which to me emphasizes the fact that it's in it's own group even more. Why are you so upset about Sony being unoriginal when Nintendo is the only company that has ever come out with an original controller? The XBox controller is just a rather clunky Genesis controller with a massive XBox and Microsoft logo on it.

Nintendo about Sony's motion sensoring. In fact they are . Why are you so concerned?

As far as online gaming goes, I've already said that Microsoft has an advantage. However, I am always distrustful of them as a company that wants to get into your pocket and have you pay them every month for the rest of their lives. It makes a ton of business sense, I just don't subscribe to it. Sony would be stupid not to emulate Microsoft's system. If people don't believe this they are stupid fan boys, but I haven't seen Sony come out and say yet what exactly they are planning to do so I find your prediction a bit speculative. Please provide more links for this mudslinging to which you refer. I can pretty much guarantee I can find just as many links where Microsoft does the same.

At the end of the day, I believe video game competition has been very predictable. When systems are competing at an uneven level, the simpler system has always won. (Jaguar, Neo-Geo, Sega CD, Dreamcast were all ahead of their time and all absolute failures.) When systems are pretty even it all comes down to which system has the best unique games. Nintendo clearly beat out Genesis and Turbo-Grafx. In the last generation PS2 won out because of Final Fantasy (huge in Japan) and GTA (huge in the US) as well as a massive library of PS1 games.

In this new generation, the ordering of systems by power is Wii, XBox 360 then PS3. Although it's not clear that the difference between 360 and PS3 will show up in games right way or even ever. As far as games go, Wii has finally jumped on the backwards wagon and is going to provide retro games for Nintendo, Super Nintendo, Genesis, Turbo-Grafx, and N64. That is freaking huge in my opinion and the only reason why I have committed to buy their system and neither of the other two yet. PS3 isn't looking too shabby with PS1 and PS2 still working. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe XBox 360 can run XBox games as well. So total games are looking pretty similar. As far as big name franchies, Nintendo still has the classic ones, but XBox has Halo and it appears XBox now has made some ingrounds into getting SquareEnix and Rockstar in their camp.

Another important factor in deciding who will win the next generation console war is who comes out first. I'm pretty sure the winner came out first or at least before the second place in each generation.

Any way you look at it, Sony has done everything wrong for PS3. Microsoft has learned from some of their mistakes and is poised to make significant ingrounds. Unfortunately for them, Sony had a huge lead. I don't know the exact numbers for share but I believe they are something like 55-35-10 for Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo. I predict the new generation to be much more competitive. My guess is something like 40-37-33 for Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo. In Japan, I think Sony will probably win by similarly low numbers. (Japanese are more likely to trust the Japanese Sony than the American Microsoft.)

I'm no expert, just a fan. I can't really call all that my 2 cents so let's call it my buck forty-five.

[Claquesous]

Oh my god. I just saw my own post and I can't believe I wasted like an hour of my life typing all that up. That's ten times worse than anything Piraya posted.

[Piraya]

10 times worse seems to be an understatement. Instead of taking a stance on either side of the issue. You felt it necessary to attack what I had put together. What I put together was a defacement of why I believe Sony is an unoriginal company and doesn't deserve the title as leader as so many put it. In my opinion and in many others a leader comes up with new technology and ideas and sets the pace. Sony simply waits, looks what others are doing, copies it and change a few things and call it good. Only until the "cell processor" have they done something on their own. I don't even believe the "cell processor will last as the PC industry is in the works of developing new core technology and there are hints about using an optical housing for the cores. I think Sony is taking a giant leap with this technology and to put that kind of price tag on the end user is asking quite a bit. I don't care how much it cost you to figure out this new technology, charge me that kind of money and you push me even further on the side of not purchasing your product.

Also, when you're putting together an argument. If you're bringing in feelings of being upset over what happened in the linkshell, try not to let it come out in what you're writing. As it tends to look like an attack on the person rather than the work. And regarding that issue about the sacks. What is the point of adding more members to a linkshell that is struggling to find its way again? What is the point of adding more members to a linkshell that many had discarded to sit in another? What is the point of adding more members to a linkshell that needs to work on itself and not be bothered by outside shit at the moment? Thats the point of a sack...is to be able to add new members. As it stands right now this linkshell needs to work on itself before it ever thinks about adding more members. More members is why I got burnt out, everyone needed and few helped.

[Piraya]

And about personal vendetta's. Microsoft however you don't like Bill Gates or its business practices has brought thousands of jobs, new millionaires who invested in his company, those millionaires started more companies, created more jobs. Bill Gates is and continues to be the largest donator to needy causes like schools. And on the other side of the spectrum we have Sony. A japanese company that brings few jobs to the U.S. and a new technology that was expensive to make and instead of eating that cost to help out their customers they stick it to them. I guess my vendetta is more unreasonable then yours...