Comments on: The problem with Sony

By: Keffan Dolly

Keffan Dolly — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 04:41:12 +0000

I just stumbled upon this blog and have been laughing hysterically for going on 15 minutes. Not only is your horizontal bias amusing it entirely discredits anything you say, your sales figures are fictional for christs sake. You are a joke.

By: Bill

Bill — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 03:32:34 +0000

Here’s a bit of background for my little rant:

I was a Sega fanboy for the longest time. Grew up with a Genesis, a Sega CD, a Saturn, and a Dreamcast. Got to watch my favorite company go under because of bad marketing, and end up being what I consider now to be a “game whore,” simply recycling things that are better left in the grave. It was a good thing that we had a Playstation 2 around the same time, which became my next big thing. Better graphics, could play all my old games (because we had a Playstation somewhere along the line… I really don’t know how many Christmases it took to get all of these systems, because we were never rich by any means), etc. I became a Sony fanboy, for a while.

Years later, I was introduced to the PSP. I absolutely loved that system. I could make my own content and play Sony’s games, which were mostly mediocre at best. My PS2 was still going strong, but my PSP was like a PS2 that I could carry with me! Despite the short battery life, the mediocre official games, the fact that Sony was going to be “different” and allow homebrew programs and games on it made it have a good deal of potential. Then they patched it. And patched it again. To the point where something that wasn’t polishing Sony’s knob wouldn’t run at all, without a good hacked firmware for the thing, something that was risky and could possibly turn my beloved PSP into a brick.

I realized that Sony really didn’t want to be different, that they were (like most companies that put out systems and video games in this day and age) just in it for the money, and screw the customer. It now remains at that firmware, 3.50 OE-A, and I really haven’t touched it since. Ended up becoming a Microsoft junkie with their 360, and didn’t have any problems with it, but I feel my nostalgia of games that I spent hundreds of hours on holds me back on new consoles, where I can pay more money for less elegant games. Thats been gathering dust for a month, because I couldn’t get into online games such as Halo 3 or Left 4 Dead, and I played Fallout 3 until my thumbs were exhausted, but there aren’t that many games that really stood out to me, like Final Fantasy 7, Phantasy Star IV (the new, online ones suck), and many other games of old.

Come to think of it, this is probably one of the things that set me into a less reputable area of video games in general, because many games of today are just buggy pieces of patchwork story with good graphics that end up needing more patching after they are released. With consoles that are largely internet accessible, most developers believe they can bypass lengthy beta testing and simply push release dates for mediocre games as soon as possible. And then they wonder why people crack the protection and pirate their games more often (cough, EA, cough). Thats a discussion for another day.

By: grootvriend

grootvriend — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 19:07:05 +0000

Let me for a change join the fun of this discussion with some maybe interesting new info.
I don’t consider myself a Sony fanboy, though my experience with the two previous Playstations did help in choosing for the PS3 over the Xbox. Overal they are both good machines but Sony made some bad marketing choices which gave them a big delay, however not so long ago numbers of this years profits was posted and it now exceeded that of Xbox. Apparantly they catched up.
Anyway, time for the info I wanted to share. First of all I want to counter the part that says that producing for the PS3 is tougher then the Xbox. For a long time this has been true but now days a huge amount of games are being made with Unreal3. Porting a game with UT3 from Xbox to PS3 or the other way around is quite easy. Thats why you see so many games these days to come out on both platforms pretty soon after each other or even at the same time. To the PS3 there is a downside to this though. It won’t use the power of the machine and that’s a shame cause it has so much more potential. Currently I’m doing research for a game company creating PS3 exclusive games and they said we could go all crazy with physics and stuff like that. They’re making AAA games yet they have not even used half the power of this beasty. The Wii is already loosing ground and the Xbox has, after three years, already reached it max. So who knows, the PS3 might still win. I guess only time will tell.

By: ManWithSword

ManWithSword — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 11:12:45 +0000

There is no ‘next gen’ battle, only a home console market place, and in that market place, its still the old PS2 which is the dominant platform. For that reason, Sony have no reason to bring the price of the PS3 down, at least not until the production process behind the PS3 has been further streamlined, and the PS2 shows signs of rapid decline, which I would imagine happening in 2009.
Sony did make a mistake with their marketing strategy. Surreal, dream-like, and abstract advertisements hinting at what was to come in future games and in high definition blu ray movies, would have been better showing in more concrete terms what the machine is capable of.
Sony also made a mistake in fighting the Immersion copyright over the rumble technology. Perhaps not though. There seem to be a number of ruthless companies that create IP, bury it, then lay in wait for a major company to come up with something similar, and spring a law suit on them, a parasitic business strategy that is destroying the economy and the games industry.
Sony were right to help develop the cell processor as its superior processing capabilities will ensure its much touted 10 year life span. Moreover, Sony will be able to save a great deal of R&D money when it comes to the PS4 onward buy using variations of the cell processor, rather than developing a new processor / renegotiating with an outside manufacturer to create another processor. While its almost a given that the PS4 will have cell based processor, the successor to the 360 is unlikely to use a variation of the already off the shelf 3-core IBM processor as used in the 360.
Sony’s decision to include a hard drive with every iteration of the PS3 was the right move to make, as was the decision to make access to online PS3 gaming free, access to Home free, and the clear display of actual cost for items in the Playstation Store, making the whole experience very consumer friendly.
This year will, I believe, be the last great year for the PS2, and at the same time, will mark the beginning of the PS3 march towards market domination. Sony will release a PS2 emulator for the PS3, free to download from the PS Store, ensuring the continued market viability of PS2 software. And as hard drives become larger, I imagine we’ll see PS2 titles available for download from the PS Store. Watch and see.

By: Dub

Dub — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 05:25:07 +0000

This is directed at Kyle Barrett, who claims (wrongly) that “CoD4, GTAIV and Burnout look better on the PS3.” I’m going to have to claim this as one of the most misinformed comments to follow this article.

I’m not going to comment on Burnout as I haven’t followed it, but EVERY MAJOR SITE that has compared COD4 claims that the 360 and PS3 versions of the game look IDENTICAL. They run at identical resolutions, framerates, and detail levels in every regard.

With regard to GTAIV, again we have a toss-up as to which game is better-looking. However, one fact can’t be denied: the sleuths at Beyond3D noted that while the 360 version runs at a full 720p, the PS3 version actually runs at a slightly lower resolution of 640p.

I hate to yank off your rose-colored glasses, but these are the facts. Feel free to try to prove otherwise.

By: Orvisman

Orvisman — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 20:41:22 +0000

You know this guy’s opinion is crap when he can type “A gulf that further widened this E3 where Nintendo and Microsoft forged ahead whilst Sony were distinctly lacklustre.” with a straight face.

Anyone who followed E3 knows Nintendo had the most lackluster showing of the Big Three. And Microsoft, except for the FFXIII multiplat announcment, just showed off their skills at copying rather than innovating: Avatars (Miis) and Lips (Singstar) to name a few.

By: Olivier

Olivier — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 08:57:32 +0000

Guys, when refuting Bruce’s arguments for lack of evidence, provide evidence yourself (more than “I personally find it to look/play better”).

Signed : A developer who has to bear working on the PS3 and know for a fact that at least the technical assertions are true, but reiterates that games are not more enjoyable/good looking because they run on powerful machines, but because developers have varying degrees of talent and different constraints.

By: Enraged Sony Fan

Enraged Sony Fan — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 17:18:01 +0000

All Sony fanboys, would you please go to the exit? Wake up and smell the ashes. Every metric seems to point that Sony is losing.

By: Snowslider

Snowslider — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 15:59:19 +0000

I had to double-check the date on this article, because most of the points that Bruce brings up are either dated or been proven outright not to be true. Anyone who comes right out and accuses people who don’t share his POV on a console ‘fanboys’, should look in the mirror. When reading Bruce’s comments on Microsoft I see ‘the glass is half-full’ perspective bubbling over. With Sony, it’s a perpetual ‘glass is half-empty’ outlook despite Sony’s expectation that the PS3 will be profitable by next year. Didn’t Microsoft just announce that the XBox console (including the original) has become profitable for them, after nearly 7 years of production? Why does MS get the free pass, while Sony gets put to task for the very same thing? Except that Sony still has a very profitable PS2 on the market as well….MS has long since abandoned the original XBox.

Please Bruce…try to present a fair and balanced picture of the reality of the situation, instead of regurgitating FUD that was true last year but no longer holds water.

By: Evan

Evan — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 14:52:50 +0000

Nick, I agree with you. You know, I really don’t care if someone likes or dislikes Sony (or any other company), but I just want to know the real reason behind the feeling. Somehow, it strikes me that the items on Bruce’s list are rationalizations put forth to prop up an already-formed perception — the items are simply too easily refuted for me to believe that Bruce is actually basing his opinion of the PS3 on them.

I find Codemaster’s post more refreshing — he said he does not like Sony’s past “attitude” and software tools. I personally would not base my choice of a console on those criteria, but at least I understand what is actually driving Codemaster’s anti-Sony sentiment. It is certainly fine to be anti-Sony, even for non-analytical reasons, but it sures helps when people are open about what is really driving their attitude.