By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

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

 

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

Yes 283 46.85%
 
No 321 53.15%
 
Total:604
fordy on 11 January 2012
d21lewis said:
Sony is the parent that gives the kid whatever they ask for--even if they can't afford it. It results in a bunch of spoiled ass kids that don't appreciate anything. They see another parent do something and they think, "Oh. Their kid got that so my kids deserve it too!" It's neighbor, Microsoft's kid got a new car. Sony goes into debt buying a similar car. The kid is thankful.

Microsoft is the parent that has a good job and gets their kid fancy things--but the kid has to have a job and some responsibilities. "You want a new car? I'll pay for half.", Microsoft says. That's fair. The kid has a nice fancy car. It's much flashier than what that Nintendo has. Microsoft has money in the bank. Could they have offred a free car? Sure. But why should they?

Nintendo is the creative, artsy, fun loving and sometimes high off their ass parent. "Microsoft bought their kid a car!" You tell Nintendo. "Here's a pogo stick." Nintendo replies. Sony bought their kid a car, too! And some sort of pogo stick that looks like a dildo." ,You tell Nintendo. "Here's a bicycle." Nintendo replies. Nintendo doesn't care what anybody else is doing. They just give you what they think you deserve because they feel they know best.

So who loves who more? The answer: Late at night, they all meet up and have swinger parties at Sega's house.

Dare we ask what happened to Sega's children who asked for more?



Around the Network
fordy on 11 January 2012

I don't think corporate entities can care about you in a loving way. They're machines, designed to profit. No profit, or sign of profit? They get shut down pretty soon...

In terms of care in terms of concern, I'd say Nintendo would be the highest there, simply because the game industry is their bread and butter. If things got bad, Microsoft could fall back on it's OS division, while Sony has it's movies, music and electronics to pull ex-gaming funds to. If Nintendo started to do bad, they'd either have to look for another industry to quickly get into, or close their doors.

Maybe they can go back to "love hotels"...



theprof00 on 11 January 2012
NintendoPie said:

 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. 


Housing stimulus. People were given really good rates on borrowing.

Banks thought they could give out cheap rates that people wouldn't be able to afford five years later when the rate goes back up, and then take the house. Banks foreclosing on houses basically started the recession we are having now, although stagnation did start a bit earlier than that.

Of course, the only reason there was stagnation at all was because of the dotcom boom skyrocketing earnings and businesses. It's similar to the wii boosting gaming market by 30% in it's first few years causing people to say gaming is dying, except the national spending affects a lot more in a shorter span of time.



Epke on 11 January 2012

yes they love our wallets



Panama on 11 January 2012

I find Gamer to be a derogatory term. It seems to carry with it negative connotations. Such as fat, laziness and a tendency to act like a self entitled man child. As a videogame enthusiast all 3 companies do what they can to entertain me.



Around the Network
sergiodaly on 12 January 2012
slowmo said:
sergiodaly said:
Play4Fun said:
sergiodaly said:
slowmo said:
"People will get a second job to buy a PS3"

They care about your money just the same as Microsoft and Nintendo

/thread

yeah... and selling at a loss says exactly that...

of course they care about money... its a business... but i do think, sony does want to reach people by giving them good products with good support to make them fans, gain market share, after this comes profit ... MS IMO has a different approach... they want to give people a product that is profitable, mainly (XBL gold yearly fee says exactly that), and the quality and support come after that!
nint is a mix of them both... being Japanese and being American can have a lot to do with it.  

of course this is opinion and a personal view of things.

about the quote on your post... i would get a second job to be able to have anything worth, or that i really want (car, phone, console, shoes, bigger breast for my GF, etc) its called common sense.


You think Sony sells at a loss for the fans? They sell at a loss because they think they can recoup those losses and get those profits elsewhere. It's called a loss leading strategy.

MS is just the same as Sony, they use the loss-leading strategy too. They also want to make people fans of their products and gain marketshare. Any company that sells products wants that.

The whole "second job" fiasco was arrogance from Sony being a bit too over-confident coming from two very successful previous generations. No console is worth $600 except to a small subset of hardcore fans and Sony learned that this generation. 

of course its a strategy... losing money was never their plan... but its how they use their strategy and how they see the customer as a part of the strategy that i think is different.

"... Sony being a bit too over-confident ..." sorry but that does exist... they were confident in their product... if they didn't show that who would? MS? nint? imo gamers are very sensitive persons that can spin what ever they want to feed their agenda.

"... No console is worth $600 ..." if it cost 800$ to make how can't it be worth 600? that does not make sense... you couldn't see the value in it, i accept that... i don't see it too in a 12.000$ wrist watch but some other find, and buy them.


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...

PS3 cost 500$ at launch... the value was there because it did sell... not as much as sony wanted and expected... but the fact is that it did sell. majority is not the same as fact. wii was much more cheap and i never saw value in it so i didn't buy it... its all about personal view. i am not saying that mine is better than other but you have to give me my right to have it.

about MS... here we were discussing the role consumers have, in the way they do business in their gaming section... and my view stands... i found it hard, at best, to justify the annual fee for XBL gold. you see the value in it and, i don't. the exclusive deals were more about cut the sales of the competition over giving their consumers real exclusivity, prof is that most of them come to sony platform sooner or latter... that gives me the felling that they want my money more than they want me to give me enjoyment. its my opinion... go figure... and since PS3 was my first console purchased by me (former PC gamer) you can hardly call me a fanboy.

i have no "principle" against paying for a service...  and i do... to my ISP... as stated before, i was a PC gamer and paying for a service that should be free is not in my horizon... sorry!

Proudest Platinums - BF: Bad Company, Killzone 2 , Battlefield 3 and GTA4

sergiodaly on 12 January 2012
Play4Fun said:
sergiodaly said:
 

have it your way... its like i am not even here... all my statments were opinions... i have mine and you yours!


Sony messing up with the PS3 isn't an opinion, it's a fact. Even they themselves acknowledge that.

Sony taking losses to drive profits in other areas of their company and not for their fans sake isn't an opinion, it's a fact.

The only opinion I gave in my post is that I don't think it's worth spending $600 for a console and that's an opinion held by the majority of the console market.

they did not mess with the PS3... they did mess at the projections they had about the industry... they thought a 500$, repeat, 500$ console would sell well and that the majority would see the value in it... they were wrong and i never say different.

i never say different ... i know that was part of a plan to profit in other areas. they did sell at loss and you can't change that. i didn't say they did that for fans... you said that. my opinion still is the same... sony goes first to get you as fan and after having lots of fans they profit from that.

majority of the console market say a lot of things... and in this gen, i prefer to be in the minority, as console of choice, in the type of games i might be in the middle , as in the view of what franchise is the best in the different genres i am also in the minority... and that is OK for me...

Proudest Platinums - BF: Bad Company, Killzone 2 , Battlefield 3 and GTA4

slowmo on 12 January 2012
sergiodaly said:
slowmo said:
sergiodaly said:
Play4Fun said:
sergiodaly said:
slowmo said:
"People will get a second job to buy a PS3"

They care about your money just the same as Microsoft and Nintendo

/thread

yeah... and selling at a loss says exactly that...

of course they care about money... its a business... but i do think, sony does want to reach people by giving them good products with good support to make them fans, gain market share, after this comes profit ... MS IMO has a different approach... they want to give people a product that is profitable, mainly (XBL gold yearly fee says exactly that), and the quality and support come after that!
nint is a mix of them both... being Japanese and being American can have a lot to do with it.  

of course this is opinion and a personal view of things.

about the quote on your post... i would get a second job to be able to have anything worth, or that i really want (car, phone, console, shoes, bigger breast for my GF, etc) its called common sense.


You think Sony sells at a loss for the fans? They sell at a loss because they think they can recoup those losses and get those profits elsewhere. It's called a loss leading strategy.

MS is just the same as Sony, they use the loss-leading strategy too. They also want to make people fans of their products and gain marketshare. Any company that sells products wants that.

The whole "second job" fiasco was arrogance from Sony being a bit too over-confident coming from two very successful previous generations. No console is worth $600 except to a small subset of hardcore fans and Sony learned that this generation. 

of course its a strategy... losing money was never their plan... but its how they use their strategy and how they see the customer as a part of the strategy that i think is different.

"... Sony being a bit too over-confident ..." sorry but that does exist... they were confident in their product... if they didn't show that who would? MS? nint? imo gamers are very sensitive persons that can spin what ever they want to feed their agenda.

"... No console is worth $600 ..." if it cost 800$ to make how can't it be worth 600? that does not make sense... you couldn't see the value in it, i accept that... i don't see it too in a 12.000$ wrist watch but some other find, and buy them.


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...

PS3 cost 500$ at launch... the value was there because it did sell... not as much as sony wanted and expected... but the fact is that it did sell. majority is not the same as fact. wii was much more cheap and i never saw value in it so i didn't buy it... its all about personal view. i am not saying that mine is better than other but you have to give me my right to have it.

about MS... here we were discussing the role consumers have, in the way they do business in their gaming section... and my view stands... i found it hard, at best, to justify the annual fee for XBL gold. you see the value in it and, i don't. the exclusive deals were more about cut the sales of the competition over giving their consumers real exclusivity, prof is that most of them come to sony platform sooner or latter... that gives me the felling that they want my money more than they want me to give me enjoyment. its my opinion... go figure... and since PS3 was my first console purchased by me (former PC gamer) you can hardly call me a fanboy.

i have no "principle" against paying for a service...  and i do... to my ISP... as stated before, i was a PC gamer and paying for a service that should be free is not in my horizon... sorry!

I never said you were a fanboy or that you didn't have a right to a opinion.  My reference to your stance on Microsoft is that you seem to have a opinion of them that doesn't reflect reality which means you clearly don't have the full facts on how they run their business which is somewhat of a flaw when using them in comparison to another company you clearly have an interest in and have researched. 

I knew you were a PC gamer before you mentioned it in that post, as the Live fee is one of the things frequently brought up by a lot of PC gamers.  I myself was a PC gamer for 20 years so can appreciate it's a hard concept to get used to paying for a online service you've traditionally received free of charge.  I still own a gaming PC by the way but haven't felt any need to upgrade in the last 2 years, although that opinion will change as the next generation approaches and we start to see a big ramp up in development that always happens on PC as better hardware is released.  Technically not wanting to pay for a online service is a "principle".

The PS3 cost $599 at launch, the 20GB none wireless cut down model ($500) wasn't available in large numbers.  Sales indicate demand for a product, the demand for a PS3 at $599 was poor and hence the price cut to increase the perceived value of the product.  It really never proved it's value at launch.



Jay520 on 12 January 2012
NiKKoM said:
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..


Yup, Although Sony allowed those games to go to different platforms, they still allowed Playstation fans to play those games. So, Playstation gamers aren't missing out. Sony still cares about them.

Also, Sony only cares about their fans, they don't really care about Xbox gamers. First off, let me remind you that many former Playstation gamers moved on to the Xbox 360. Sony knew this and they still cared about their ex-fans on the Xbox 360. Once you buy from Sony, Sony will always care about you, even if you move on to different consoles.

That's why Sony allowed those 3rd party exclusives to go to the Xbox 360. They still cared about their ex-fans on that console, so they decided to still give them a plethora of great games.

S.T.A.G.E. on 12 January 2012
slowmo said:
sergiodaly said:
Play4Fun said:
sergiodaly said:
slowmo said:
"People will get a second job to buy a PS3"

They care about your money just the same as Microsoft and Nintendo

/thread

yeah... and selling at a loss says exactly that...

of course they care about money... its a business... but i do think, sony does want to reach people by giving them good products with good support to make them fans, gain market share, after this comes profit ... MS IMO has a different approach... they want to give people a product that is profitable, mainly (XBL gold yearly fee says exactly that), and the quality and support come after that!
nint is a mix of them both... being Japanese and being American can have a lot to do with it.  

of course this is opinion and a personal view of things.

about the quote on your post... i would get a second job to be able to have anything worth, or that i really want (car, phone, console, shoes, bigger breast for my GF, etc) its called common sense.


You think Sony sells at a loss for the fans? They sell at a loss because they think they can recoup those losses and get those profits elsewhere. It's called a loss leading strategy.

MS is just the same as Sony, they use the loss-leading strategy too. They also want to make people fans of their products and gain marketshare. Any company that sells products wants that.

The whole "second job" fiasco was arrogance from Sony being a bit too over-confident coming from two very successful previous generations. No console is worth $600 except to a small subset of hardcore fans and Sony learned that this generation. 

of course its a strategy... losing money was never their plan... but its how they use their strategy and how they see the customer as a part of the strategy that i think is different.

"... Sony being a bit too over-confident ..." sorry but that does exist... they were confident in their product... if they didn't show that who would? MS? nint? imo gamers are very sensitive persons that can spin what ever they want to feed their agenda.

"... No console is worth $600 ..." if it cost 800$ to make how can't it be worth 600? that does not make sense... you couldn't see the value in it, i accept that... i don't see it too in a 12.000$ wrist watch but some other find, and buy them.


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...


The PS3 outsold the 360's first year, even with a $600 price tag. Look up the launch sales of both consoles.