By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Ronster316 on 23 January 2009
Edit Thread
Torillian said:
Ronster316 said:
bouzane said:
Ronster316 said:
disolitude said:
Not at all. Sony came in to the business by hogging 3rd party games with cash...putting Sega(much superior gaming company) out of hardware and almost crippling Nintendos console business.

If they left someone else would jsut take their spot and pick up their studios...

 

100% true

I second the above statement.

(Saved me from going in to an anti sony rant lol)

Conviniently forget to mention that the Saturn's contrived hardware architecture and Nintendo's poor treatment of third party developers is what allowed Sony to enter the market and dominate. Take off the rose tinted glasses and recognize that Sega and Nintendo did these things to themselves.

 

 

Sonys MONEY did more damage the Sega and Nintendo than Sega and Nintendo did to themselves.

They preyed on REAL GAMES DEVELOPERS and fed them to the wolves.

Bottom line______________________

 

And how exactly have you proven this theory?  Y'know, other than just believing what you want to believe.

OT: it would bother me because I like Playstation, not particularly Sony.  If some other company came in and took over the playstation brand then I'd be fine with it on face value, barring whatever changes they decide to put forth that may or may not annoy me.

oh forget it, yes, it was Sonys amazing gaming division of 1994-1999 that made all the difference right?

Oh wait? they had no damn games in 1994 and relied on 3rd party support to get them to the top and not their own gaming division talent.

How is it a proven theory? so you think the Saturn and N64 would have been failures if sony wasn't around? Lots of 3rd party developers took Sonys easy money rather than supporting two Hardware and software legends.

So why do i blame sony and not developers? simple, sony were the ones with the cheque book.