Mass Effect was a lost cause, I dont think they should've ported that until its time. Nintendos relationships with devs are weird and they got plenty of late ports so Mass Effect 3 was one of the few they got. I really hope Nintendo doesn't contine to have current gen issues in the next gen, but of course I know they will. In Sony's case its kind of obvious that they had been fighting for years to get full Mass Effect support but couldnt since Microsoft paid for exclusivity to the 360. Nintendo was a little late and basically got the last bite of the sandwich. When EA bought Bioware they finally ended the trilogy lock Microsoft had for Sony. Thats what happens when you're persistent with third party, I guess.

I am generally impressed by what Sony fans have to put up with in general. It obviously comes down to blind loyalism, but at the end of the day loyal fans are loyal fans and Sony should be grateful that they still have them. I don't think any amount of fuckups can ever change that. Same applies with Nintendo fans. 

What did Sony fuck up on pertaining to third party outside of the cell in the hardware which hampered the development process on multiplats? Outside of that librarywise Sony has provided more than any other company. Numbers wise its the other consoles that I worry about, because Sonys new IP count wasnt even contested with. Its like they gave up. 

Sonys new IP development chart comparison with Nintendo and Microsoft.

http://www.gamespot.com/features/when-do-we-see-the-most-new-ip-6384770/

Yes pie charts and numbers are riveting stuff but whats that got to do with the fact that multiplatform games have been interior on PS3, the supposedly superior current gen system???

And aside from the Cell, I was also refering to the online. Games and game content is inferior to the point where I find it hard to believe that any multiplatform gamer would willingly choose the online service of PSN over others. 

Sony more than covered their end, they got a healthy dose of third party games that doesnt hamper me from gaming at all. Their ports arent terrible, they just have a possibly worse framerate issue or texture pop-ins but so did the Xbox 360. Depends on the third party game.. The online is not inferior by a longshot any longer, In fact PSN has only grown and offered more to the consumer than the competition, and the online activity in games like COD, Battlefield and FIFA prove its smooth access online is basically equal to the 360 (The 360 downloads a bit faster and thats about all I noticed). Sony has essentially done their part of keeping online gaming playable and free, yet involved themselves in premium service that gives away a heap of games monthly. This is something that no other console can say they get free or even with a monthly fee. If you're a gamer....its kind of obvious where the games are currently whether one likes them or not. The online use is as healthy as ever. I wonder....if their online games content was inferior, how come PSN games have been on GOTY lists outside of their categories?

Well, it was annoying at the start of the gen how most ps3 ports were bad. I did own a 360, but my inner Sony fan was still a bit angry. Although looking at the situation objectively, why should 3rd parties spend so much time and money developing for a difficult system. That didn't stop me from buying the games though. There were games that were bad and some notoriously bad but I still purchased them. There were also games that came out late for ps3 that I would buy, like Mass Effect for example. That being said, I don't blame Nintendo fans for skipping those games for these reasons, it's understandable.

@bold. So you haven't yet answered OP, since the PS3 wasn't a good comparison to the U.

What would you do if the PS4 got bad and late ports, rather than the opposite (game being delayed on U to match PS4 schedule, rayman legends).

Would you boycott to the risk of being called a whiney fanboy?

They are already.

*Looks at Vita*

*Looks at Bamco, Crapcom boycott comments*.

Yeah....

Hypothetically speaking, its understandable to be frustrated with late ports when you're expecting to have a certain console, but I am loyal to no console. Also, to anyone investing in Nintendo over the past three gens already one should be weary about how much third party they expect from Nintendo to begin with. Anyway, I just go to the one that provides me with the most game possibilities and yes that currently just so happens to be Sony. They failed earlier in the gen but they came back up with no excuses. They know how to tie up their issues and just get the job done.

If in the case that the PS4 got late ports, like the PS3 I would only suspect that Microsoft stood in the way. Sony makes policies about DLC being added to the product for Xbox 360 timed exclusives. Its a much better deal than Microsoft cutting their gamers off at the hip if they don't get a game on its expected launch date. Everyone suffers then.  I have to applaud Nintendo on their late ports, it had me looking in the direction of the Wii U for a while, but now I've realized I want them for their exclusives more so I just cannot wait until they amass them. I've had that feeling about Nintendo for quite a while now as Nintendo has consistently been my secondary console since the PS made its debut. Last gen I missed out on the Wii but I played the games worth playing at a friends house so I really didnt miss out on too much in the end. I might patch up some loose ends on the U. 

well, to begin with, due to the PS4 hardware (PC like) it is almost impossible to have a bad port. But even if it had not so good ports; if I like what I see in the game I would buy it. I can tolerate some performance issues.