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
Play4Fun on 12 January 2012
Jay520 said:
Play4Fun said:
Jay520 said:


No, I didn't contradict myself. The Xbox gamers I referred to (DMC, FF players, etc.) aren't actual Xbox gamers. They are Playstation gamers because they are playing Playstation games, but on an Xbox. A gamer should be identified by his or her games, not his or her console.

And yes, Namco, Capcom, & Square Enix have to do what Sony says. If not, they will be left out when Playstation 4 domination begins. Sony gave them permission to release their games on the Xbox because Sony wanted to satisfy the Playstation gamers that game on Xbox.

And if you're wondering, Sony intentionally failed the Playstation 3. They could have sold over 200 million units and put Nintendo & Microsoft out of business. Just look at what they did to Sega. However, they decided to be in third place so they wouldn't be accused of leading a monopoly. Because of their failure this gen, Sony can and will dominate next generation without getting in trouble for starting a monopoly.

It's like how Michael Jordan dominated for so long, he decided to retire. Then he came back years later to dominate again. That is what Sony is doing. Don't try to argue with me because all my points are well founded.




Using Futurama pics to disprove my argument....weak


Wait...wtf!

I used that pic because I thought you were joking or being sarcastic or something.

I didn't think you were actually being serious.

In fact, I still don't think you  are being serious, so just drop the act already.



Around the Network
theprof00 on 12 January 2012
Play4Fun said:
theprof00 said:
 

I think what you're missing here is that this thread isn't about Sony caring in the aspect of "want to do what's best for the customer", but it's about caring that they do right by the customer. This could be phrased as "they care about having us as customers". They want our money, so they do as much as they can to making sure they get it.

The same really can't be said about MS or Ninty. MS used to charge 10$ to change a gamertag. 10 freakin' dollars! The excuse was to prevent people from abusing a free name change system. OK so then make it 99 cents! They charge for Live! They charged 100$ for proprietary hard drives. They charged 100$ for proprietary wifi dongle! Hey, hey, now, I know...it's good business, and maybe Sony would have done the same...should have done the same. Create expensive proprietary drives, proprietary wifi, with just built in ethernet. But they didn't. Why? Who knows. People would have bought the system regardless and bought the upgrades if they wanted them. Wifi and hard drives were not a selling point.

So, in terms of getting the customer a great well made product, Sony did right. Nintendo did as well for the first 3-4 years, then stopped caring. MS didn't really this entire time. For example, the red ring. Sure, they extended warranties and replaced consoles with refurbs, but it would take 1-2 weeks to get your thing fixed. PSN was offline for two weeks. You could still play single player. What did Sony do? Give everyone free games and several months of PSN+, which also has more free games. I'd say sony cares. Maybe not in a caring for my wellbeing way, but in a "we are very careful about keeping our customers happy".

MS seems to take more of the stance of, "our customers will be happy", and Sony, "let's make sure our customers are happy".

 

None of this is meant to troll or insult. This is just a, perhaps exaggerated, recount of the actual events that happened.


It seems to me that you are just looking for good things about Sony and bad things about MS because Sony is your preferred company.

If I played that game too, I could just say MS is better because they give alot to charities and they charge us a fee for Live because they want us to have the best possible online service. Or I could say Nintendo is better because when they dropped the 3DS' price they gave early adopters free games and they have the most reliable hardware.

Then I could say Sony is not as good because they are charging us for proprietary memory cards with Vita and they over-priced their product.

All 3 companies do things  to keep their customers happy so that they continue to buy their products.

People in here are just looking for good things about their company to convince themselves they are the best.

Fact is, all 3 do what they can to keep their fanbase and customers happy. None is better than the other. Alot of bias going on in here.

The fuck are you talking about?

I know MS is a great company, nay, Bill Gates is an extraordinary man, and all of Apple's success can be directly attributed to Bill Gates. And they charge because they want us to have a superior online system? Do you know how much money they make on their subscriptions? Many many millions more than they put into making it "an average" serverbase. What about proprietary drives and proprietary wifi adaptor? What were those for? To provide the best possible storage? The best possible wifi? No. These are all money making endeavors. I know you're thinking "that's business". And yes, you're right. But the difference is keeping customers happy. Does a charge keep customers happy for online? No. Does proprietary everything keep customers happy? No. They are obstacles that customers are willing to endure for the system they want. Big difference.

Nintendo, is probably the closest. They make great games, have fair pricing on their games, and have very reliable hardware. However, they discourage third party competition. Of course, Nintendo knew YEARS before the wii came out what they were going to do. Their strategy was all pre-planned. Third parties had to make it up on the spot.Third parties had no idea what would sell, and Nintendo didn't do anything to help them. Good for business? Yes. Does it keep the customer happy? No. And the fact that they have almost completely abandoned development is especially infuriating. They stopped making games because one game is capable of selling 20million, and they don't want new titles to compete. New super mario wii came out over 2 years ago, with no sequel in sight. Why? Because people keep buying NSMB Wii. Good for business? Yes. Does it keep the customer happy? No, because someone who bought it over 2 years ago, hasn't been kept happy. Only the people who haven't bought the game become satiated. After all, why spend money developing games when one game will keep selling as long as you don'tmake a sequel. Ie; why buy nsmb 1, when nsmb 2 is out?

And yes, I agree with you that Vita's strategy is stifling. I don't like their proprietary card prices, and I don't like them pushing the 3g even though wifi to 3g price for hardware is negligible. In terms of the Vita, Sony is fucking up. But you know what? MS proved that you could sell unnecessarily overpriced addons to the gamer and get away with it. I don't like what Sony is doing, but I want the system, because it has the games that I want. Are they keeping the handheld gamers happy? No. Are they doing right by business? Yes.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but I call it like I see it.

Nintendo is shitty to gamers on the wii. They are better with gamers on the 3DS.
MS is shitty to gamers on the 360, but they do right by providing the games their core gamers want, but that will change as kinect keeps getting bigger.
Sony is Great with PS3 owners, but they are shitty to PSV owners.

When it comes to the consoles, Sony probably does the best as they fund indie games, picking up new developers all the time, and trynig to bring as many games to the console as possible without any charge to us.

When it comes to handhelds, Nintendo does the best as they have learned a valuable lesson and are working hard to bring in third parties, and new developers.

In the same way that Nintendo learned to be good to its handheld owners, so did Sony with its ps3. That is why both are at the height of each respective outlet.

 



theprof00 on 12 January 2012
Play4Fun said:
Jay520 said:
Play4Fun said:
Jay520 said:
 


No, I didn't contradict myself. The Xbox gamers I referred to (DMC, FF players, etc.) aren't actual Xbox gamers. They are Playstation gamers because they are playing Playstation games, but on an Xbox. A gamer should be identified by his or her games, not his or her console.

And yes, Namco, Capcom, & Square Enix have to do what Sony says. If not, they will be left out when Playstation 4 domination begins. Sony gave them permission to release their games on the Xbox because Sony wanted to satisfy the Playstation gamers that game on Xbox.

And if you're wondering, Sony intentionally failed the Playstation 3. They could have sold over 200 million units and put Nintendo & Microsoft out of business. Just look at what they did to Sega. However, they decided to be in third place so they wouldn't be accused of leading a monopoly. Because of their failure this gen, Sony can and will dominate next generation without getting in trouble for starting a monopoly.

It's like how Michael Jordan dominated for so long, he decided to retire. Then he came back years later to dominate again. That is what Sony is doing. Don't try to argue with me because all my points are well founded.




Using Futurama pics to disprove my argument....weak


Wait...wtf!

I used that pic because I thought you were joking or being sarcastic or something.

I didn't think you were actually being serious.

In fact, I still don't think you  are being serious, so just drop the act already.

You mean the picture of Fry that's commonly associated with, "Wait a minute....i see what you did there"?

And it took 3 posts for you to post that, yet you didn't think he was being serious the whole time?

<insert picture of fry>



S.T.A.G.E. on 12 January 2012
XanderZane said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
XanderZane said:
sergiodaly said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
 


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

good argument... didn't think of that...

nice one!

Not really. That only happened due to a huge shortage of XBox 360. There were no shortages of PS3. After the initial launch, because were actually returning them because they could sell them for a profit on EBay. That's a fact. Gamestop and Toys R. Us even had signs on their doors claiiming they had plenty of PS3 available for sale because they were overstocked. lol!! Sony also did a price cut on the PS3 just 6 months after launch. Another fact. It wasn't at $600 for long. Research is your friend. Nice one indeed. lol!!

Then explain the inequality of all the other years. The PS3 has shown more growth if you look at it year for year.

I'm not talking about the other years, I'm talking about the 1st year only. I believe the XBox 360 outsold the PS3 the 2nd year. The other years the PS3 was selling well in Japan. People keep forgetting that Japan is the PS3 edge. If the Xbox 360 sold even 1/2 as well as the PS3 in Japan it would be a different story. Remove Japan from the equation and tally US and Europe only and the 360 has the slight edge. The PS3 sells better in the U.S. then the XBox 360 does in Japan. The only thing that was holding the PS3 back in Japan was the price. Same thing that's happening now with the PSVita. It will SELL in Japan, the price just has to drop and more JRPG, and popular games like Monster Hunter and FF needs to be released on it. It'll take off it gets down to $150 - $199. The PS3 is popular in 3 regions, the Xbox 360 is popular in only 2, which is the difference. Still compared to how the original Xbox performed against the PS2, I'd say the XBox 360 is a clear winner this generation.



It doesnt matter what anyone thinks. Look at the numbers and Sony has had steadier growth year for year. Sony just needs to fill the gap and they have this year and next year to do it. Microsoft hasn't won the generation, the Wii has and Kinect is what saved Microsoft in 2011 and its not small, its dramatic. It kept the 360 selling well all through 3rd quarter when they had not one exclusive until September when Gears came out. It's getting the same fanfare the Wii got from casuals. The only thing holding the PS3 back in Japan is the lack of Japanese games made for the Japanese crowd. Simple.



Play4Fun on 12 January 2012
theprof00 said:

The fuck are you talking about?

I know MS is a great company, nay, Bill Gates is an extraordinary man, and all of Apple's success can be directly attributed to Bill Gates. And they charge because they want us to have a superior online system? Do you know how much money they make on their subscriptions? Many many millions more than they put into making it "an average" serverbase. What about proprietary drives and proprietary wifi adaptor? What were those for? To provide the best possible storage? The best possible wifi? No. These are all money making endeavors. I know you're thinking "that's business". And yes, you're right. But the difference is keeping customers happy. Does a charge keep customers happy for online? No. Does proprietary everything keep customers happy? No. They are obstacles that customers are willing to endure for the system they want. Big difference.

Nintendo, is probably the closest. They make great games, have fair pricing on their games, and have very reliable hardware. However, they discourage third party competition. Of course, Nintendo knew YEARS before the wii came out what they were going to do. Their strategy was all pre-planned. Third parties had to make it up on the spot.Third parties had no idea what would sell, and Nintendo didn't do anything to help them. Good for business? Yes. Does it keep the customer happy? No. And the fact that they have almost completely abandoned development is especially infuriating. They stopped making games because one game is capable of selling 20million, and they don't want new titles to compete. New super mario wii came out over 2 years ago, with no sequel in sight. Why? Because people keep buying NSMB Wii. Good for business? Yes. Does it keep the customer happy? No, because someone who bought it over 2 years ago, hasn't been kept happy. Only the people who haven't bought the game become satiated. After all, why spend money developing games when one game will keep selling as long as you don'tmake a sequel. Ie; why buy nsmb 1, when nsmb 2 is out?

And yes, I agree with you that Vita's strategy is stifling. I don't like their proprietary card prices, and I don't like them pushing the 3g even though wifi to 3g price for hardware is negligible. In terms of the Vita, Sony is fucking up. But you know what? MS proved that you could sell unnecessarily overpriced addons to the gamer and get away with it. I don't like what Sony is doing, but I want the system, because it has the games that I want. Are they keeping the handheld gamers happy? No. Are they doing right by business? Yes.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but I call it like I see it.

Nintendo is shitty to gamers on the wii. They are better with gamers on the 3DS.
MS is shitty to gamers on the 360, but they do right by providing the games their core gamers want, but that will change as kinect keeps getting bigger.
Sony is Great with PS3 owners, but they are shitty to PSV owners.

When it comes to the consoles, Sony probably does the best as they fund indie games, picking up new developers all the time, and trynig to bring as many games to the console as possible without any charge to us.

When it comes to handhelds, Nintendo does the best as they have learned a valuable lesson and are working hard to bring in third parties, and new developers.

In the same way that Nintendo learned to be good to its handheld owners, so did Sony with its ps3. That is why both are at the height of each respective outlet.

 


Whoa! Okay, man. Sony cares for us more than MS and Nintendo.  You happy? Geez...



Around the Network
Play4Fun on 12 January 2012
theprof00 said:
Play4Fun said:
Jay520 said:
Play4Fun said:
Jay520 said:
 


No, I didn't contradict myself. The Xbox gamers I referred to (DMC, FF players, etc.) aren't actual Xbox gamers. They are Playstation gamers because they are playing Playstation games, but on an Xbox. A gamer should be identified by his or her games, not his or her console.

And yes, Namco, Capcom, & Square Enix have to do what Sony says. If not, they will be left out when Playstation 4 domination begins. Sony gave them permission to release their games on the Xbox because Sony wanted to satisfy the Playstation gamers that game on Xbox.

And if you're wondering, Sony intentionally failed the Playstation 3. They could have sold over 200 million units and put Nintendo & Microsoft out of business. Just look at what they did to Sega. However, they decided to be in third place so they wouldn't be accused of leading a monopoly. Because of their failure this gen, Sony can and will dominate next generation without getting in trouble for starting a monopoly.

It's like how Michael Jordan dominated for so long, he decided to retire. Then he came back years later to dominate again. That is what Sony is doing. Don't try to argue with me because all my points are well founded.




Using Futurama pics to disprove my argument....weak


Wait...wtf!

I used that pic because I thought you were joking or being sarcastic or something.

I didn't think you were actually being serious.

In fact, I still don't think you  are being serious, so just drop the act already.

You mean the picture of Fry that's commonly associated with, "Wait a minute....i see what you did there"?

And it took 3 posts for you to post that, yet you didn't think he was being serious the whole time?

 

Yes, the picture of Fry that's commonly associated with, "Wait a minute....i see what you did there"

Is there a problem?

And the number of posts it took me to post it is relevant...how?



theprof00 on 12 January 2012
Play4Fun said:

Yes, the picture of Fry that's commonly associated with, "Wait a minute....i see what you did there"

Is there a problem?

And the number of posts it took me to post it is relevant...how?

It's relevant because you didn't realize it until later, yet claimed that you had noticed it already.



slowmo on 12 January 2012
S.T.A.G.E. said:
sergiodaly said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
 


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

good argument... didn't think of that...

nice one!


If both consoles sold at the same time there wouldn't be an argument about who is selling better. The PS3 is just playing catch up because they've sold more consoles in the time they've been around being its sixth year and the 360 on its seventh. Three major things the PS3 needs to overcome:

1. 360's value as a console (hardware, library, online etc)....which is well spoken for with its sales last year. 

2. The hardest thing to beat which is the Kinect effect, not the 360 itself.

3. Microsoft marketing, which only shines light on a handful of games. Sony has too many games to make commercials for, so they need to reinvest.

Number one has been done. The other two are of little substance but are the largest causes of high sales.

 

You can twist any number to fit an agenda but there is only certain numbers that tell the full story. 

The PS3 hasn't outsold any of its competitors. 

The PS3 will not outsell its predecessor

The PS3 has cost Sony Billions that it'll never recoup



theprof00 on 12 January 2012
Play4Fun said:
theprof00 said:
 

The fuck are you talking about?

I know MS is a great company, nay, Bill Gates is an extraordinary man, and all of Apple's success can be directly attributed to Bill Gates. And they charge because they want us to have a superior online system? Do you know how much money they make on their subscriptions? Many many millions more than they put into making it "an average" serverbase. What about proprietary drives and proprietary wifi adaptor? What were those for? To provide the best possible storage? The best possible wifi? No. These are all money making endeavors. I know you're thinking "that's business". And yes, you're right. But the difference is keeping customers happy. Does a charge keep customers happy for online? No. Does proprietary everything keep customers happy? No. They are obstacles that customers are willing to endure for the system they want. Big difference.

Nintendo, is probably the closest. They make great games, have fair pricing on their games, and have very reliable hardware. However, they discourage third party competition. Of course, Nintendo knew YEARS before the wii came out what they were going to do. Their strategy was all pre-planned. Third parties had to make it up on the spot.Third parties had no idea what would sell, and Nintendo didn't do anything to help them. Good for business? Yes. Does it keep the customer happy? No. And the fact that they have almost completely abandoned development is especially infuriating. They stopped making games because one game is capable of selling 20million, and they don't want new titles to compete. New super mario wii came out over 2 years ago, with no sequel in sight. Why? Because people keep buying NSMB Wii. Good for business? Yes. Does it keep the customer happy? No, because someone who bought it over 2 years ago, hasn't been kept happy. Only the people who haven't bought the game become satiated. After all, why spend money developing games when one game will keep selling as long as you don'tmake a sequel. Ie; why buy nsmb 1, when nsmb 2 is out?

And yes, I agree with you that Vita's strategy is stifling. I don't like their proprietary card prices, and I don't like them pushing the 3g even though wifi to 3g price for hardware is negligible. In terms of the Vita, Sony is fucking up. But you know what? MS proved that you could sell unnecessarily overpriced addons to the gamer and get away with it. I don't like what Sony is doing, but I want the system, because it has the games that I want. Are they keeping the handheld gamers happy? No. Are they doing right by business? Yes.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but I call it like I see it.

Nintendo is shitty to gamers on the wii. They are better with gamers on the 3DS.
MS is shitty to gamers on the 360, but they do right by providing the games their core gamers want, but that will change as kinect keeps getting bigger.
Sony is Great with PS3 owners, but they are shitty to PSV owners.

When it comes to the consoles, Sony probably does the best as they fund indie games, picking up new developers all the time, and trynig to bring as many games to the console as possible without any charge to us.

When it comes to handhelds, Nintendo does the best as they have learned a valuable lesson and are working hard to bring in third parties, and new developers.

In the same way that Nintendo learned to be good to its handheld owners, so did Sony with its ps3. That is why both are at the height of each respective outlet.

 


Whoa! Okay, man. Sony cares for us more than MS and Nintendo.  You happy? Geez...

Why would I be happy that you ran from an argument? I want you to grow and learn and realize that fanboyishness doesn't cloud all eyes. You just disappoint me by running from a fight. Maybe you're used to talking to idiots who can't make a half-decent point? I'm here to help you step your game up son. Now it just seems like you're posting your picture of fry-

-pretending like you have even an ounce of fight left in you



slowmo on 12 January 2012
theprof00 said:
Play4Fun said:
theprof00 said:
 

I think what you're missing here is that this thread isn't about Sony caring in the aspect of "want to do what's best for the customer", but it's about caring that they do right by the customer. This could be phrased as "they care about having us as customers". They want our money, so they do as much as they can to making sure they get it.

The same really can't be said about MS or Ninty. MS used to charge 10$ to change a gamertag. 10 freakin' dollars! The excuse was to prevent people from abusing a free name change system. OK so then make it 99 cents! They charge for Live! They charged 100$ for proprietary hard drives. They charged 100$ for proprietary wifi dongle! Hey, hey, now, I know...it's good business, and maybe Sony would have done the same...should have done the same. Create expensive proprietary drives, proprietary wifi, with just built in ethernet. But they didn't. Why? Who knows. People would have bought the system regardless and bought the upgrades if they wanted them. Wifi and hard drives were not a selling point.

So, in terms of getting the customer a great well made product, Sony did right. Nintendo did as well for the first 3-4 years, then stopped caring. MS didn't really this entire time. For example, the red ring. Sure, they extended warranties and replaced consoles with refurbs, but it would take 1-2 weeks to get your thing fixed. PSN was offline for two weeks. You could still play single player. What did Sony do? Give everyone free games and several months of PSN+, which also has more free games. I'd say sony cares. Maybe not in a caring for my wellbeing way, but in a "we are very careful about keeping our customers happy".

MS seems to take more of the stance of, "our customers will be happy", and Sony, "let's make sure our customers are happy".

 

None of this is meant to troll or insult. This is just a, perhaps exaggerated, recount of the actual events that happened.


It seems to me that you are just looking for good things about Sony and bad things about MS because Sony is your preferred company.

If I played that game too, I could just say MS is better because they give alot to charities and they charge us a fee for Live because they want us to have the best possible online service. Or I could say Nintendo is better because when they dropped the 3DS' price they gave early adopters free games and they have the most reliable hardware.

Then I could say Sony is not as good because they are charging us for proprietary memory cards with Vita and they over-priced their product.

All 3 companies do things  to keep their customers happy so that they continue to buy their products.

People in here are just looking for good things about their company to convince themselves they are the best.

Fact is, all 3 do what they can to keep their fanbase and customers happy. None is better than the other. Alot of bias going on in here.

The fuck are you talking about?

I know MS is a great company, nay, Bill Gates is an extraordinary man, and all of Apple's success can be directly attributed to Bill Gates. And they charge because they want us to have a superior online system? Do you know how much money they make on their subscriptions? Many many millions more than they put into making it "an average" serverbase. What about proprietary drives and proprietary wifi adaptor? What were those for? To provide the best possible storage? The best possible wifi? No. These are all money making endeavors. I know you're thinking "that's business". And yes, you're right. But the difference is keeping customers happy. Does a charge keep customers happy for online? No. Does proprietary everything keep customers happy? No. They are obstacles that customers are willing to endure for the system they want. Big difference.

Nintendo, is probably the closest. They make great games, have fair pricing on their games, and have very reliable hardware. However, they discourage third party competition. Of course, Nintendo knew YEARS before the wii came out what they were going to do. Their strategy was all pre-planned. Third parties had to make it up on the spot.Third parties had no idea what would sell, and Nintendo didn't do anything to help them. Good for business? Yes. Does it keep the customer happy? No. And the fact that they have almost completely abandoned development is especially infuriating. They stopped making games because one game is capable of selling 20million, and they don't want new titles to compete. New super mario wii came out over 2 years ago, with no sequel in sight. Why? Because people keep buying NSMB Wii. Good for business? Yes. Does it keep the customer happy? No, because someone who bought it over 2 years ago, hasn't been kept happy. Only the people who haven't bought the game become satiated. After all, why spend money developing games when one game will keep selling as long as you don'tmake a sequel. Ie; why buy nsmb 1, when nsmb 2 is out?

And yes, I agree with you that Vita's strategy is stifling. I don't like their proprietary card prices, and I don't like them pushing the 3g even though wifi to 3g price for hardware is negligible. In terms of the Vita, Sony is fucking up. But you know what? MS proved that you could sell unnecessarily overpriced addons to the gamer and get away with it. I don't like what Sony is doing, but I want the system, because it has the games that I want. Are they keeping the handheld gamers happy? No. Are they doing right by business? Yes.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but I call it like I see it.

Nintendo is shitty to gamers on the wii. They are better with gamers on the 3DS.
MS is shitty to gamers on the 360, but they do right by providing the games their core gamers want, but that will change as kinect keeps getting bigger.
Sony is Great with PS3 owners, but they are shitty to PSV owners.

When it comes to the consoles, Sony probably does the best as they fund indie games, picking up new developers all the time, and trynig to bring as many games to the console as possible without any charge to us.

When it comes to handhelds, Nintendo does the best as they have learned a valuable lesson and are working hard to bring in third parties, and new developers.

In the same way that Nintendo learned to be good to its handheld owners, so did Sony with its ps3. That is why both are at the height of each respective outlet.


Not getting involved in the other stuff but since when did Sony's stance on helping a few Indie developers become better than Microsoft's policy of actually providing free SDK's to Indie developers along with an entire section on Live to publish the content created.  If you're gonna bring up that point then Microsoft have Sony well and truly beaten on the contribution to the Indie scene now.