Why are people acting like the PS3 losing even more market share is A-OK?

[Dodece]

@yushire

I honestly think the brand was crippled when Sony decided to exploit their loyal user base to win a format war. Most gamers were at least dissatisfied, and at most furious about the price tag they were being asked to pay. Enough to quash sentiment that is for sure. Further more it upset developers who were being asked to flip higher development costs. Sony came into this generation far too self centered. When you put your needs that far ahead of the needs of others you go beyond being symbiotic, and go right into being parasitic.

I honestly doubt that Sony can nurse the brand back to even a shell of its former self. So much damage has been done in the eyes of consumers, and Sony seems to lack the right mentality to endear itself back into the hearts of consumers and developers. A good name is hard won, and so easily destroyed. The first step Sony has to make is to apologize for what they did. That is simply not something they can do without. However they seem outwardly to not be repentant. They are glad about what they did. Which was basically fuck everyone else as long as they got what they wanted.

Worse then all that is that Sony has placed themselves in a lose lose proposition. To succeed next generation at the least they need to provide a cost effective console for all concerned. Both for gamers and for developers. To do so they need to use common architecture. The downside to this is that it will probably not be backward compatible. Which means in order to regain lost consumers they have to jack their most loyal consumers. That is why I tell most people if you have a 360 and a PS3 buy the game for the 360. The next Xbox will probably be backward compatible. The next PS will probably not be backward compatible. The result is one last cluster fuck for loyal gamers. Who cannot trade back to trade up. Talk about getting the shaft.

@leo-j

There are three sides to a lineup. Quality, Quantity, and Variety. Memorize those, because the PS3 has yet to deliver on more then one. You need to have quality games, a good quantity of games, and those games have to be varied in style. Laugh and shake your head, but if you had a 360 you had a good selection to work from this year and in the previous year. It is the difference between binging, and having a healthy diet. Did the PS3 deliver on all fronts. No it did not. In fact the console two years out still has glaring holes in its library.

This year Microsoft delivered a balanced lineup. Something Sony did not do. Often enough it was two or even three exclusive titles per genre. Even the best game wears thin after a couple months. So then what you starve. I like my role playing games, and you know what like clockwork Microsoft had a new game in my genre every few months. That I like, and to me that is the hallmark of a good lineup. Consistent delivery. I know you just love the hell of hurrying up, and then waiting for months on end. A barren landscape just isn't my thing. Not that Sony did the worst job this year that honor goes to Nintendo for core neglect.

I invite you to compare the lineups for both the 360 and the PS3. Don't just fixate on a handful of titles compare the rosters face to face, and ask yourself seriously which lineup really filled the needs of gamers. High profile games are sexy, but quantity and variety are the real fundamentals of any lineup. Without them you are lacking.