Free online gaming

Region free software

Two things which all gamers should be entitled to, it should be some sort of law; only provided by Sony.

Everyone knows the casual market is what keeps everything going. The core are the ones who know about the games that dont get publicity. Enthusiasts if you will who are on sites like this and know when the games are coming out, which in most cases the casual will ignore. This makes us the stable branch of the gaming market even though we are the smallest. You can call us the back bone. Hideo Kojima was talking about the level of industry were in now where games are having a hard time competing with commercially successful titles. The top titles of the year in a pool of games are turning from two handfuls to one handful.

This thread is good for a laugh! I almost convinced myself that some people who voted yes, might actually believe that. But then I thought, NO, they HAVE to be kidding, right?!

I mean no rationale person honestly believes there is some "we love our customers more than you!" board of directors at Sony who are guiding that ship, do they?

Do They?!

 Wait, even though I was younger I specifically remember since 2002 (when I actually toke notice to things) almost everyone was really well off in America and the houses were selling ridiculously fast at ridiculous amounts, I remember it staying that way 'till around 2008. 

Yeah, that sounds about right.

I can understand what people mean by "true gaming", they just need to word it properly and start calling it "hardcore gaming".

The PS3 never proved it's market value at $600 hence the terrible sales.  It might have been worth that to you but the majority of consumers spoke and Sony were forced to listen. 

I think you need to seriously reassess your view of Microsoft.  They contribute a lot to charities, they cut the price of their products for education and most importantly of all, they do all this out of their own pockets without being funded by a government like the subsidies Sony receive from the Japanese government (which incidentally some person in Japan is paying for in taxes too).  I'm not saying Microsoft are some holier than thou corporation but you seem to be taking a very blinkered view of them ignoring the fact they actually do a awful lot of good for some parties that they really have no obligation to do.  I would add they don't do this for PR as you rarely hear about the charitable work the company does.  You could argue that they do the education deals to try and capture a audience for their products early on but the point is these people would still have to use Microsoft products given the marketshare so would arguably have to buy them anyway.

My point stands that all gaming companies are out for your money, they just have different methods of getting it.  I would hardly call Sony's response to YLOD and dead Bluray laser issues of not replacing them on launch models as caring about a consumer more than the others.  Hell even Nintendo offered a recall on launch Wii's that had a certain laser fitted that may have issues with some of their newer titles.

The XBL fee is so they can provide a service to ahigh standard and maintain it to that standard.  I would rather pay for a better service and I've always felt XBL is a far superior service to PSN and happily paid for the privilidge.  My XBL account costs me 8p per day, I spend more on parking in ayear than I do on XBL and get zero enjoyment for that privilidge.  If it was £10 per month I'd agree it might make me think twice but in the grand scheme of things they've been upfront about the cost and only ever improved the service so I fail to see how it's an issue unless you have some "principle" about not paying for a receiving a good service...

Well it really depends on how you viewed the PS3 at the time in 2006.

$599 for a system that at the time offered Blu-ray, Free online, Free Internet browser, Blue tooth capiablities, More Realiable then the "Other Guy", and had a decent amount of exclusives games at the time seemed like a deal to me. (Not to mention it was ofcourse more powerful then the other consoles)

Also MGS4 in my opinion was not the first "Must Have" game only on the PS3. I would proably say Uncharted: Drake fortune was, But thats just me...

OT: If you are not gonna read the whole OP of the thread, then you have already defeated the purpose of understanding and answering the question of the title...

WRONG

PS2 was the least powerful of the three consoles that gen, and PS1 was weaker than N64. It's just that CD's were a better format on PS1, while PS2 was so much more popular that it effectively held the other two platforms back. You just need to look at a Gamecube exclusive like Star Wars Rogue Squadron to see the difference in graphics.

People just assume because recent consoles like PS3, PSP and Vita are powerful that it's always been that way. Not at all true.

I do want to say Sony cares more about the gamers from the other companies.. letting their big 3rd party exclusives like monster hunter, tekken, final fantasy,devil may cry etc just go on to appear on other platforms and doing absoluty nothing about it is a sign of a big heart..

I read the whole OP, not the whole thread (i.e. all 100+ replies).

About your list of features: the Blu-Ray player wasn't a big deal for me (still isn't) and I know it's the same for a lot of people, it certainly wasn't as big a deal as the DVD player in the PS2. Free online is nothing when the games hold no interest. Who the hell ever paid for an Internet Browser? What good is reliability when you don't have anything to play?

WARNING: The above paragraph is written from my point of view and represents how I viewed the PS3 before the MGS4 release.

But all this is steering a bit off course, the main thing is that Sony put all these features in the PS3 not because they are generous and caring but just because they thought it would get them more business.