Does Sony Care More About Their Gamer's Then Microsoft and Nintendo...

[Michael-5]

S.T.A.G.E. said:

Michael-5 said:

Sorry I have to say this is more appropriate. If Sony wanted to deliver the best possible gaming experience, they wouldn't have made their games Blu-Ray based. When PS3 released Blu-Ray wasn't even the definitive home theatre platform, it was a brand new technology (unlike CD and DVD in PS1/PS2) and a lot of sales were just to people who wanted a cheap Blu-Ray player. Unlike the CD in PS1 and DVD in PS2, the Blu-Ray wasn't on the market long enough to stabilize, and Sony threw it in anyway making expensive home consoles standard play now. No pay for online gaming, but they definatly set the standard for home console costs a lot higher now, and they don't even offer a console with a small hard drive anymore (but then on PS3, you kind of need to install everything, which still makes no sense to me)

This wasn't done to deliver the best possible gaming experience, it was done to help the Blu-Ray industry and to make the PS3 a all in 1 system.

 

Wow that post you quoted was biased. You critisize the Wii, but how has Sony supported the PSP in the last 2 years? God of War is 1 game, and since then we have seen nothing, and nothing is in the works. Sony pre-maturely abandonded the PSP. Nintendo however continues to support the DS post 3DS with Prof Layton, Pokemon, and Kirby, and Wii still sees some support with Zelda, XenoBlade, The Last Story, Pandora's Tower, Earth Seeker, Fatal Frame, Mario Party 9, and Fortune Street. The first 3 there are 9/10 + titles, then next 3 are likely 8/10+ and the others are meh (depends on personal tastes).

Sony, like Nintendo now, have also removed Backward compatibility in their home consoles. They did this to cut cost and make a profit (lessen the quality for money). When MS made their 360 slim, the only drawback was that the hard drives were not compatible with old models, but at least on 360 they are interchangable. Nintendo removed BC nearly at the end of Wii's life and it's still not hard to buy a new BC Wii.

As for rechargable controllers, PS3 controllers come with chargers built in, but the cable is what 4 feet long? You cannot play while charging at that range, the 360 charge cable is 5x longer, but it's still a pro for PS3 because you can buy extension cables.

As for new IP's. Yes 360 has less new IP's then Sony, but when you compare the number of exclusives 360 has more (not sure about first party, but overall much more). 360 has been getting less exclusives now, but that doesn't change that fact. Also the quality of the games on 360 is higher. Look by metascore, both PS3 and 360 have 9 games with a score 9/10 or higher, however 2 of the PS3 games are collections (games which should be playable BC), and 1 is 3rd party, where all 9 are 1st party for 360, or published by MS and MS has franchise rights.

 

Anyway I won't argue, Sony is better then Microsoft for 3 main reasons. Reliability (not only does $1-$2 more tray fix the early disk scratching issue, a $3 motherboard clip fixes RRod because it prevents the Motherboard from sagging), XBL costs, and all the damn ads on XBL.

Nintendo however is the best, Wii is sold at a reasonable price now at the end of it's life, the same can't be said for PSP. Nintendo has given the DS more support then the PS3 and PSP combined, and then add Wii in there too, Nintendo reliability is highest, Nintendo rewards gamers for buying their games with free stuff (club Nintendo), BC has stayed in the console for nearly the entire life of it, and although the number of AAA exclusives on the Wii is less then 360 and PS3, they are arguably far more playable (You can, and likely will, play Mario Kart and Smash Bros for years after release).

Also Nintendo introduces nearly all gaming gadgets and controller schemes, while others copy. Analog sticks, the D-Pad, Shoulder buttons, 4 button ABXY layout, wireless controllers, Wii-mote, etc. 

He only owns a 360. He has an outsiders view but a quite accurate one. Hes correct that Sony did give us the latest entertainment tech at a low cost (even if they had their reasons), they have the most high quality games (especially from first party) with the least shovelware and have third parties, but dont depend on them. The majority of their games are geared towards the core gamer rather than the casual, even though casual games do exist. Core games do not take the back seat to the casual on the PS3 unlike the Wii and 360. Its not just the free online which Sony beats Microsoft, its most things of actual substance like first party games, variety, tech, and much much more. What Microsoft does better is they have better marketing and Kinect. Seriously...in the gamers eyes who is the steadiest company at any E3. Microsoft and Nintendo always fluctuate and Sony always is the most stable E3. They dont need to surprise, just keep gamers content amidst the lack or abundance of the competition. 

Also, the Wii might have sold the most but has delivered the most shovelware and in the last two years I can barely see what Nintendo has been doing for the actual gamer. I can actually name more games I want from them compared to the 360 last year though. In E3 Nintendo is always the console to be concerned about when it comes to making new and interesting IP's for gamers while Sony doesnt have this problem. Actually Ive never seen an E3 where Sony wasnt at least slotted in either first or second place. A steady company every year.

Actually I own a 360, a Wii, and a DS, and I owned a PS3 in the past, but it broke outside of warrenty. I don't have an outsider view.

Also most quality titles on PS3? Where were you before 2009? Sure now PS3 had a better 2009 and 2011, but what did they release in 2010, a single game (GT5)? You can't just look at the most recent year and forget about all the others. Quality wise Nintendo is the best, MS is #2, Sony is last, but they are catching up where Wii is nearly done, and 360's focus has shifted to Kinect.

I disagree with you. As a gaming device I still think the 360 is supperior to PS3. If you just want to play games, 360 is cheaper, and has more exclusives, of better quality.PS3 however is a multi-purpose device, and is more reliable.

Not sure if I can agree about Sony being the most stable at E3, what has PSP gotten in the last few years? PS3 early life was composed of announced titles which took 4 years or more to release, some of the gmaes (mainly third party) have yet to be released.

As for Nintendo, I think you are way off. Out of all the consoles this gen, Nintendo has the most wanted exclusives. It don't think all 30 million Mario Kart sales are due to casual gamers, and games like Super Mario Galaxy, Zelda, and Smash Bros consistantly outsell almost any 360/PS3 title excluding Halo. They definatly do release the most shovelware, but who cares. They still produce a strong amount of AAA quality titles, most of which are above the HD exclusive standard (only exclusive above Zelda last year was Uncharted, and I think XenoBlade/The Last Story will rank super high as well).