Why do so many gamers hate Sony?

[quote name='mxpowar']I'm not following the connection you made between the PS2 and the Wii. What do they have to do with each other? I think people buy a PS2 or a Wii for very different reasons.[/QUOTE]

The development of games for the Wii are also being developed for the PS2, therefore the Wii si keeping the PS2 alive somewhat.
 
[quote name='Snake2715']The development of games for the Wii are also being developed for the PS2, therefore the Wii si keeping the PS2 alive somewhat.[/QUOTE]
I think you are only talking about a few cases. The PS2 is standing on its own because of a high install base, not because of the Wii. And I disagree that Sony would rather have the PS3 succeed than the PS2. I think they would rather that they both succeed. In fact, the profits from the PS2 are what are keeping PS3 production alive. They certainly aren't making any money from the PS3.
 
[quote name='BattleChicken']First off, I don't agree with Jer's tone at ALL. It tries to make people 'winners' or 'losers' based off of some reviewer's opinions. Being correct in that kind of circumstance is just pointless. The review spoke for itself, no need to rub it in like a douche.[/quote]

Eh, I like to gloat when I'm right, so I can't say much. I do take issue with people who make decisions (PS3 is crap) and then cheerlead themselves when they find supportive evidence of their belief well after they've established their decision. It's boring and incorrect, not to mention circumstantial.

As others have pointed out to whoknows, who the hell does know (haha) if Devil May Cry 4 is better on PS3? It could be, it may not be - if Capcom's habits are any indication, they'll be identical. But if he is right, and the PS3 version is better, he'll have been right by accident, wouldn't he be? That's what bothers me about jer's gloating. It's like the Great Karnac telling us all how right he was all along.

But, to be fair, there certainly is a strong correlation between the quality of a late preview build, (like the kind they sent IGN), and the final retail code. More often than not, crappy preview = crappy game, great preview = great game.

In this case, the final product was very much improved -- thats what the crunch time is for, but it is NOT foolish to think 'bad preview build, bad game' because more often than not, that is the case with the final product. But, as a whole, it is better to wait for the final review for final impressions.
Click to expand...

There are exceptions to that, but they are just that - exceptions.
 
Inspired by Battlechicken's sig, I know what Sony can do to make themselves right with the gaming world, and that would be to make Starcraft.

They could hype it up and release it next month, and act like there's never been anything like it before.

It's just crazy enough to work.
 
[quote name='Strell']Inspired by Battlechicken's sig, I know what Sony can do to make themselves right with the gaming world, and that would be to make Starcraft.

They could hype it up and release it next month, and act like there's never been anything like it before.

It's just crazy enough to work.[/quote]

Great Scott!!

It WOULD work!
 
I'm in for five!

EDIT: And come to think of it, the PS3 is just like the Protoss - very powerful, but there are hardly any of them out there, amiriteguyslulz!

[quote name='mykevermin']And allow me to say, again, that any pre-gold master impressions are only that: impressions. You're not wrong, but being right is coincidental, seeing as how you made up your mind before the jury was out.[/quote]Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you say you weren't going to buy a game a little while ago because the demo wasn't hard enough?
 
That was probably Uncharted, which I didn't buy at release, but did buy after people began gushing over it. ;)

I was curious if anyone knew how many XBL Gold subscribers there are? I'm curious because I have my doubts about the 360 having this raging throng of online gamers compared to the PS3 having a paltry smattering of online gamers (based on what people claim, anyway).
 
[quote name='mykevermin']That was probably Uncharted, which I didn't buy at release, but did buy after people began gushing over it. ;)

I was curious if anyone knew how many XBL Gold subscribers there are? I'm curious because I have my doubts about the 360 having this raging throng of online gamers compared to the PS3 having a paltry smattering of online gamers (based on what people claim, anyway).[/QUOTE]
You're kidding, right?

There's not even close to as many That Triples sold as the 360.

Okay, but you say, "PSN is free". For every "PSN is free" guy there is a "Live is worth the money" guy.

I'm guessing there are more "Live is worth the money" guys because trying to find online matches on PSN is like passing through a ghost town.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']That was probably Uncharted, which I didn't buy at release, but did buy after people began gushing over it. ;)

I was curious if anyone knew how many XBL Gold subscribers there are? I'm curious because I have my doubts about the 360 having this raging throng of online gamers compared to the PS3 having a paltry smattering of online gamers (based on what people claim, anyway).[/quote]
It was Ratchet, not Uncharted.
 
[quote name='zewone']You're kidding, right?

There's not even close to as many That Triples sold as the 360.

Okay, but you say, "PSN is free". For every "PSN is free" guy there is a "Live is worth the money" guy.

I'm guessing there are more "Live is worth the money" guys because trying to find online matches on PSN is like passing through a ghost town.[/quote]

For what games? I'm still playing Resistance and Motorstorm and those games are over a year old. It is hardly a ghost town. I'm sure Warhawk has a lot of people playing it. Resistance is always packed with people. Not every game has only you and some guy from Fargo playing.
 
[quote name='zewone']Tekken 5: DR.

I just got it this weekend.

There was one guy online..

Who I couldn't even connect to...[/quote]
Didn't you gameshare it with a few other people? Where are they at?
 
[quote name='zewone']You're kidding, right?

There's not even close to as many That Triples sold as the 360.

Okay, but you say, "PSN is free". For every "PSN is free" guy there is a "Live is worth the money" guy.

I'm guessing there are more "Live is worth the money" guys because trying to find online matches on PSN is like passing through a ghost town.[/QUOTE]

Not necessarily. My point is based upon what percentage of 360's are used for online gaming? It's limited by the number of Gold members. OTOH, every single PS3 is capable of online play by any user, anytime they want to. Just go to the online multiplayer section of a game.

I imagine that Tekken is a ghost town because (this is guesswork) it hasn't sold too well. I own it, but rarely play it. Nevertheless, anecdote schmanecdote. I have found only one person playing UMK3 online (and homeboy took me to school like three fuckin' nights in a row last week) - but I'd be a damn fool to argue that nobody's playing their 360s online based on just that, no?

You say "every 360 can go online," and I say "not everyone is a Gold member." Only a portion of 360's are thus capable of online multiplayer, whereas, as I've said, every PS3 can whenever the user wants to.

Warhawk has a robust online community, as does Resistance, CoD4, Motorstorm, and Guitar Hero III. I'll find out what Rock Band's online community is like in the next day or so.

You can argue against it, but neither you nor I have data to verify it in either direction, and it's misleading to think that you could.

Either way, whether there are 1,000 people playing Online Game X online at a moment or 10,000...when you're playing 1 on 1, or in a 30-40 person deathmatch, the difference you don't see behind the scenes is irrelevant, right? Why should I care about the 960 or 9,960 people I'm not playing against when I can consistently find games to play online?
 
[quote name='FriskyTanuki']It was Ratchet, not Uncharted.[/QUOTE]

Indeed. Still don't own that one. It'll be GH by the time I genuinely develop any urge to play it, if at all.
 
Okay, every That Triple is capable of playing online.

But, if the person bought a That Triple over a 360, I'm going to assume they are only a casual online gamer.

So, should they really count since you're likely to never run into them?

If the person is what some would consider a "hardcore" online player (like yours truly) and owns both a 360 and That Triple, they'll be playing online games on their 360 over their That Triple.
 
[quote name='mykevermin'] Why should I care about the 960 or 9,960 people I'm not playing against when I can consistently find games to play online?[/QUOTE]

Hmmm.

I imagine the number playing a game is relevant only in terms of longevity.

I played a game online for a good ten years or so with the same (roughly) group of 200 people or so, and of that 200, less than a 100 were active, and even then it was usually the same 50-60. But it was still always fun, and I actually need to pick it back up.

I guess so long as you can find a game as long as you want - i.e., you still want to play X 5 years from now and can versus it having been a flavor-of-the-week affair - then number probably doesn't need to be factored in.

Just sayin'.
 
[quote name='zewone']Playing COD4 on the 360.[/quote]
Why buy it if you knew they weren't going to play it? For wasting your money, you should fight them for it back.
 
[quote name='Strell']Hmmm.

I imagine the number playing a game is relevant only in terms of longevity.

I played a game online for a good ten years or so with the same (roughly) group of 200 people or so, and of that 200, less than a 100 were active, and even then it was usually the same 50-60. But it was still always fun, and I actually need to pick it back up.

I guess so long as you can find a game as long as you want - i.e., you still want to play X 5 years from now and can versus it having been a flavor-of-the-week affair - then number probably doesn't need to be factored in.

Just sayin'.[/QUOTE]

I think there's an element of truth to that. I also am gonna guess yer talkin' bout Starcraft, no?

But there are differences innate both in genre (sports having the shortest shelf life, I suppose), and also in networking. My schedule and personality are far too erratic to schedule gaming time ("hey, man! "Warhawk" this Thursday from 9-11!" won't work for me - I'll end up at the bar by accident, or working on a paper or something), but the network aspect is far more critical in your case than the number playing (to an extent).

I'm sure the OTT CoD4 crowd couldn't give a fuck if only 50 people ever played CoD4 online, as they play in the same group for the most part. It's not up to the online community to sustain their habits, as they've established a routine outside of the typical "online gaming is short attention span theater, so you better buy this shit at launch and play the fuck out of it for 6 months if you want to play online at all" pattern.

What you're describing is an, err...virtual form of moving "off the grid." What you describe appears to be a self-sustaining online community. In my longwindedness, I could have easily said "you have a stable clan that doesn't really need an online community," I suppose.

zew, I'm not touchin' that last post of yours with a ten foot pole on account of the conjecture involved there.

[quote name='zewone']But, if the person bought a That Triple over a 360, I'm going to assume they are only a casual online gamer.[/QUOTE]

Thar she is.
 
Actually, it was for an overhead 2D game called Subspace.

Virgin Interactive Entertainment (VIE) made it. It stayed in beta for a good 2-3 years. I probably came in about the 1.5 year mark.

It did go to retail, but it flopped, and VIE actually closed up. However, we as the gamers took control at that point, setting up our own servers to play on. Later, some of the more intrepid members who were programmers actually reverse engineered the client itself, renaming it to "Continuum."

I think there are still games going on during the weekends, which is about all the time anyone can really spare for it.

Excellent, excellent game. A real shame it didn't stay more popular than it was. I blame the somewhat complex control system, which took some getting used to, and I imagine not many had the patience. Also, it functioned with a stronger physics engine than most other games, so you had to take all of that into account while playing, which resulted in a lot of frustrated newbs.

I keep hoping one day that crew is going to get their ish running on XBL or PSN or something, because it is perfectly suited for any of those platforms.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
I'm sure the OTT CoD4 crowd couldn't give a fuck if only 50 people ever played CoD4 online.

zew, I'm not touchin' that last post of yours with a ten foot pole on account of the conjecture involved there.



Thar she is.[/QUOTE]
Wrong.

If only 50 people played online, then we would be playing against the same people every time. What's the fun in that?

And you lied. You touched it.
 
[quote name='zewone']I didn't pay for shit.

I WANT to play it, but there is no one to play with.[/quote]
Okay, then I guess you're lucky that you're not out any money because of it. You could make a thread to round some people up if you're desparate for people to play.
 
[quote name='Strell']Actually, it was for an overhead 2D game called Subspace.

Virgin Interactive Entertainment (VIE) made it. It stayed in beta for a good 2-3 years. I probably came in about the 1.5 year mark.

It did go to retail, but it flopped, and VIE actually closed up. However, we as the gamers took control at that point, setting up our own servers to play on. Later, some of the more intrepid members who were programmers actually reverse engineered the client itself, renaming it to "Continuum."

I think there are still games going on during the weekends, which is about all the time anyone can really spare for it.

Excellent, excellent game. A real shame it didn't stay more popular than it was. I blame the somewhat complex control system, which took some getting used to, and I imagine not many had the patience. Also, it functioned with a stronger physics engine than most other games, so you had to take all of that into account while playing, which resulted in a lot of frustrated newbs.

I keep hoping one day that crew is going to get their ish running on XBL or PSN or something, because it is perfectly suited for any of those platforms.[/QUOTE]

So then it was necessity over circumstance, then?

[quote name='zewone']Wrong.

If only 50 people played online, then we would be playing against the same people every time. What's the fun in that?[/quote]

50 was an arbitrary number. As I said earlier, once you hit a threshold of people playing online at which you're unlikely to play against the majority of them no matter how much time you invest into the game, it's moot, isn't it?

What I'd like to see is if there are disparities b/w multiplayer games where the 360 game is flourishing and the PS3 version a ghost town. That would account for something in the absence of genuine data.

And you lied. You touched it.
Click to expand...

I was raised Catholic. I can't help it.
 
I remember subspace! Man, that was a long time ago... it did take getting used to, for sure... as at the time it came out, it really didn't have the 'standard' physics people were used to... bouncing off everything was kinda funny... I'd love to see it on a console... I bet it'd be a great little game.

As for online... I can see the draw for a large community, but I can see a better option for a smaller, more dedicated community. The "everyone's got it and is online" sort of game is more often than not a game that burns out quicker... simply because the SN ratio is so high... I prefer playing (very, very rarely) with people I already know... and that is why I'm still a single-player campaign sort of guy... like most people, my schedule isn't as flexible as it used to be (when I played Diablo and Warcraft all the time...) and I've developed a low tolerance for morons in games as I've become an older fart.... ;)
 
I guess you could say that to an extent, barring the "games are not a life requirement" clause.

Mostly just saying that in that instance, those who really liked the game and were dedicated kept it going, regardless that the number of us was essentially negligable.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
Either way, whether there are 1,000 people playing Online Game X online at a moment or 10,000...when you're playing 1 on 1, or in a 30-40 person deathmatch, the difference you don't see behind the scenes is irrelevant, right? Why should I care about the 960 or 9,960 people I'm not playing against when I can consistently find games to play online?[/quote]

Allow me to elaborate on this last point.

If your interested in playing a game online, you want as many people playing as possible so you can connect to some people near you. More people playing means more people playing in your neighborhood, which means a smoother play experience.

I play CoD online every day. Ive begun to notice that I need a 'critical mass' of players in order to get a good game. CoD4 tells you how many people are playing a certain game type. I find the magic number for me is at least 5000. That many or above, and Im likely to get four full bars on my connection (god do I wish they expressed my ping as a ms number like a normal PC game). Less than 5000 and I could be in for a rough ride. Yesterday I was in a simply beautiful server, soo smooth. Turns out nearly everyone in the game was in New Jersey, as I am.

If I play late night/ early morning, the people on the east coast US go to sleep, and I start playing with westcoasters. After they go to bed I start winding up in servers in England, France, Spain, and Italy. And my connections to those games arent very good. I have to change my play style to be more sneaky, and shoot people in the back, hide in corners, etc.

I dont know the stats, but Im willing to bet that theres a helluva lot more people playing CoD on the 360 versus the PS3. And If Im interested in getting as lagfree an online experience as possible, Im gonna want the most popular version of the game. So the amount of people playing the same game as you definitely matters.

Of course, this really only matters for Shooters and fighters and precision stuff like that. If you want to play Uno or Culdecept online, none of the above matters.
 
[quote name='Puffa469']Kotaku's got a vid up of a side by side & split screen comparison of 360 and PS3 Orange Box.

http://kotaku.com/gaming/clips/ps3-v-360-the-orange-box-round-332798.php

Theres no doubt that the 360 version runs smoother. Wether or not the PS3 version runs well enough is entirely to you.[/quote]

It looks like they are quicksaving on the PS3 version at the boat sequence on that vid, which is the only place I noticed any slowdown, that might be why.

Apart from that the two versions look identical IMO.
 
[quote name='benjamouth']

Apart from that the two versions look identical IMO.[/QUOTE]

I thought the PS3 version looked slightly better to be honest, it is choppier no doubt however.
 
Who would hate a company? Honestly, if you truly hate a company, you need to spend your time doing better things.

See my sig, everyone play everything and be happy!

TRAAA LAL ALAL ALALAAAAA
 
[quote name='The Crotch']
EDIT: And come to think of it, the PS3 is just like the Protoss - very powerful, but there are hardly any of them out there, amiriteguyslulz!
[/quote]

The Protoss are weaksause.

WEAKSAUCE!
 
[quote name='seanr1221']Who would hate a company? Honestly, if you truly hate a company, you need to spend your time doing better things.

See my sig, everyone play everything and be happy!

TRAAA LAL ALAL ALALAAAAA[/quote]

I hate plenty of corporations, just not the ones that make videogames and videogame consoles.

If you wanna hate a corporation, theres plenty of worthy ones currently detroying the environment, cheating people out of their pensions/savings or promoting slave/child labor practices.
 
[quote name='seanr1221']Who would hate a company? [/QUOTE]

Well, hate is a strong word. Annoyed or peeved would be better fitting, IMO.
 
I don't hate any companies, but the PS3 is an overpriced peice of junk and Sony has done little yet to make me consider it this generation. Their fault, not mine. I don't need a 360 lite that costs more, thanks.
 
[quote name='Puffa469']I hate plenty of corporations, just not the ones that make videogames and videogame consoles.

If you wanna hate a corporation, theres plenty of worthy ones currently detroying the environment, cheating people out of their pensions/savings or promoting slave/child labor practices.[/quote]

Don't forgot corporations that enable the military industrial complex or seesaw on important ethical issues such as privacy.
 
[quote name='BattleChicken']The Protoss are weaksause.

WEAKSAUCE![/quote]Over this insult, blood will be spilt. And since Protoss don't actuallyhave blood, I believe everyone here knows just who will be doing the bleeding.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']Over this insult, blood will be spilt. And since Protoss don't actuallyhave blood, I believe everyone here knows just who will be doing the bleeding.[/quote]

No other race can be decimated by the power that is EMP + nuke.

Nothing bleeds when it gets nuked.. you evaporate way too fast for that.
 
Just one comment:

The only way to vote is with $$, no matter what anyone says, the company that sells the most units, games, etc. and makes the most $$$, THAT is the system that most understands US Consumers and what they want. (Can't say US Gamers....that is much more complicated and the definition of 'gamer' is hard to agree upon)
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']Valve didnt handle the porting, because they've been very public about not caring about the platform. So it might be an embarassment for the PS3[/QUOTE]

I don't get your logic. "fuck developing for this platform, let these EA monkeys do it" is an embarrassment for the PS3? It's not as if the system's architecture can't handle it, as evidenced by all the other games that run fine and have good framerates. It's lazy developers, finger-pointing, and self-fulfilling prophecies as far as I'm concerned.

And yes, yes, Gabe Newell is the high prince of all things good in the gaming world. Sure. I can't figure out, then, why Bethesda had no issues porting Oblivion (and even made it a micron faster in loading), why Guitar Hero III is identical to its 360 counterpart, why CoD4 is as well, and so on. When there is ample evidence of developers, both respected (CoD4) and portmonkeys (GHIII), making games run just fine on both consoles, that it becomes an inherent flaw in the system itself when a select few titles have damn-near-irrelevant flaws (HL2 being debatable in that regard, but Madden 08 being a bunch of tight-panties prats just fulfilling their own smug satisfaction and predetermined preferences).

IOW, if there are many ports that run just fine, and a handful that are lesser, can you reasonably blame the console?
 
Sony charges to much for there products then after they sucker a few people into buying the high priced stuff they lower the price to try and attract more buyers, this applies to all there products not just the ps3/ps2
 
[quote name='jer7583']I don't hate any companies, but the PS3 is an overpriced peice of junk and Sony has done little yet to make me consider it this generation. Their fault, not mine. I don't need a 360 lite that costs more, thanks.[/QUOTE]


ohhhhh, that's cold. How about you stop discussing PS3 issues, because you're not even objective enough to recognize the good things that the PS3 does. But I'm sure that if the PS3 was 200/300 dollars you'd have one. But baby, in this world you can't get something for nothing. All I'm goign to say is that.. if you spend 600 dollars on team xbox 360, you won't have the same package you would w/ the 600 dollar team PS3 package.
 
[quote name='freemoney']Sony charges to much for there products then after they sucker a few people into buying the high priced stuff they lower the price to try and attract more buyers, this applies to all there products not just the ps3/ps2[/QUOTE]

Ooooh, lookie! An economics lesson!
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I don't get your logic. "fuck developing for this platform, let these EA monkeys do it" is an embarrassment for the PS3? It's not as if the system's architecture can't handle it, as evidenced by all the other games that run fine and have good framerates. It's lazy developers, finger-pointing, and self-fulfilling prophecies as far as I'm concerned.

And yes, yes, Gabe Newell is the high prince of all things good in the gaming world. Sure. I can't figure out, then, why Bethesda had no issues porting Oblivion (and even made it a micron faster in loading), why Guitar Hero III is identical to its 360 counterpart, why CoD4 is as well, and so on. When there is ample evidence of developers, both respected (CoD4) and portmonkeys (GHIII), making games run just fine on both consoles, that it becomes an inherent flaw in the system itself when a select few titles have damn-near-irrelevant flaws (HL2 being debatable in that regard, but Madden 08 being a bunch of tight-panties prats just fulfilling their own smug satisfaction and predetermined preferences).

IOW, if there are many ports that run just fine, and a handful that are lesser, can you reasonably blame the console?[/QUOTE]


Is it really cost effective to release a poor version of any game on the PS3?

and who made Gabe Newell prince of anything, I can't give that guy any respect, he can't even program on PS3. I guess he's talented, but I guess Ps3 programming exceeds his limitations.
 
[quote name='freemoney']Sony charges to much for there products then after they sucker a few people into buying the high priced stuff they lower the price to try and attract more buyers, this applies to all there products not just the ps3/ps2[/quote]

Do you enjoy embarassing yourself? This has to be the dumbest thing I have read on this forum.
 
[quote name='Thomas96']Is it really cost effective to release a poor version of any game on the PS3?

and who made Gabe Newell prince of anything, I can't give that guy any respect, he can't even program on PS3. I guess he's talented, but I guess Ps3 programming exceeds his limitations.[/quote]
I believe he simply looked at it as a cost to benefit ratio.

The cost of porting code (that easily worked between the PC -> Xbox 360) exceeded what they would make on the PS3 sales of the game. That, or it was a time cost to benefit ratio. His dev teams would have to focus their efforts on the port rather than some other project. He didn't think it was worth it -- talent had nothing to do with the PS3 Orange Box, money did.

The guy doesn't like the PS3. He doesn't HAVE to develop for it. He thinks it sucks... (for some easily supportable reasons, actually...), and someone with that kind of artistic direction thinking it sucks matters a great deal more than what you or I think, because HIS opinions determine the GAMES they make for the PS3.

Apparently, he'd rather let EA do it... and from several economic angles, that is very smart business.
 
Didn't Valve do Half Life 2 for the Xbox but someone else did the PS2 version of Half Life? Valve never touched the PS2 either I believe. Nothing has changed, but some people will have you believe the PS3 is going downhill because Valve doesn't want to work with it. They spent money to have Half Life offered on PS2 and PS3, that shows they believe Playstation consoles can be worth offering games for and that's what ultimately matters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top