From what I have seen, a lot of Sony's biggest supporters are now some of Sony's harshest critics; many of them are so critical of Sony because they went from producing affordable systems with the most games with the Playstation and PS2, to producing very expensive systems with the least games with the PSP and PS3. Regardless of whether Sony fans currently like it or not, the reason a large portion of people bash the PS3 is because Sony abandoned their base of support (which represents the majority of gamers).

HappySqurriel said: From what I have seen, a lot of Sony's biggest supporters are now some of Sony's harshest critics; many of them are so critical of Sony because they went from producing affordable systems with the most games with the Playstation and PS2, to producing very expensive systems with the least games with the PSP and PS3. Regardless of whether Sony fans currently like it or not, the reason a large portion of people bash the PS3 is because Sony abandoned their base of support (which represents the majority of gamers).

I couldn't have summed it up any better. I was a diehard Sony supporter (PS1, PS2, PSP and now the PS3) but they are straying so far from the PS path it's sad. The next PS won't even be a PS - dropping a core value like BC, saying rumble is so last gen and then bringing it back after settling with Immerision ... I tell you, it's so sad because they are completely unpredictable. 

ikilledkenny said: disolitude said: Here are some random things why I'm not the biggest Sony fan: 1. They dominated for 2 generations with inferior consoles. 2. The pretty much single handedly put Sega out of the console business (if someone eliminated your favourite hockey team from playoffs you'd be pissed too) 3. The hype behind their systems is rediculous because their senior management lies their butts off. (ps2 having star wars episode one like graphics...right!) 4. They don't bring anything to the table when it comes to software. One can count the good games Sony's in-house dev teams made on two hands in the last 10 years. their good games mostly come from 3rd party companies. 5. They still don't know how to make a good D-pad on a controller. Now I have to admit that PS3 is starting to look promissing but it still doesn't offer anything new gaming wise when compared to the 360 which was there a year earlier. PS3 actually reminds me of the Sega Saturn (inferior ports on a better console machine, hard to program for, best components, retarded management decisions) I agree with most of that, but you underestimate their software. While it is nowhere near Nintendo's quality, Sony still makes some very good games. And you forgot three things when comparing it to the Saturn: way too big, overpriced, and corporate arrogance. Oh, and PS3 is like a leech on Sony profits, just as the Saturn was for SEGA.

LOL at Saturn comparisons. Lets not forget that the Saturn was a pioneer when it comes to consoles connecting to the internet and online play...just like PS3, which is a pioneer when it comes to connecting to the internet and playing online...for SONY!!!

To add to the discussion...both Sony and Microsoft are the same to me. Two big corporations trying to profit in a gaming market. So I think one shouldn't hate one over the other based on the name. Thus far, non fanboys should agree that 360 has better games and thats the only problem for PS3. It all might change this year...

It's funny because people keep posting in this topic and the author stopped caring a long time ago.

The PS3 sucks because it has a fan in the back to keep the CPU and GPU cool. That's why the higher the graphics in the game (Uncharted) the faster the fan spins the more PS3 sucks. :)

@halil23

You would be correct, IF the games I was interested on for PS3 were only appearing on it and 360. This is not the case. Indeed, the few 360 titles that interest me are also almost all PC-bound or also on PC. The 360 is also a PC alternative to me right now, and also something I don't really want or need as a result.

halil23 said: Sky Render said: I don't think the PS3 sucks; quite the contrary, I think it's quite a powerful and versatile machine. The problem is, I already have a machine that's more powerful and versatile than it is, and that is getting pretty much everything the PS3's getting that's worth getting to me personally. It's called my PC. I really don't see any reason to invest an additional $400 to $500 in a console that ultimately has nothing to offer over what I already have. Maybe if I had no PC and didn't want to spend the money to get one, I'd see a PS3 as a great choice. But that's not the case, so... Maybe some day in the future, the PS3 will have enough items I'm interested on it exclusively, at which point I may well consider getting one. But for now, it's just a PC alternative to me. And an alternative I'm in no need of. Yo! From what I had bolded it for you, it pretty clear that you're talking about xbox instead of PS3. Cause that what xbox is - PC 0.5! So please don't compare PS3 to PC. "has nothing to offer over what I already have" you'll never get PS3 exclusives but will do with xbox's.

The biggest argument of console gamers vs. PC gamers is that a PC costs way too much just for video games. But with PS3's launch price of $600 that argument went down the window. I can build you a decent PC box for 500 (decent meaning it can run crysis on min to med settings). That said why should I waste my money on something far inferior to what i can already get? Outside of a few genres (fighting, racing, sports) PC has far superior controls than a console. I won't even get into the fact that multiplayer is far better on PC's too (I don't have to spend more money for Live, and I can do infinetly more on the PC). I'm sorry but at the way console's prices are going up, I feel that people will start going back to the PC for some gaming. As for the games themselves. No console will ever come close to the graphics that a good PC can output, and no console will ever be able to create FPS/RTS/RPG games the way a PC can. (Just in case you try to argue the RPG thing, think about this. WoW has 10 million players right now.)

PC gamer and PS3 gamer are pretty similar in my mind. Both are elitist types who use words like "resolution" and "frames per second" to describe how fun a game is.

I'm sorry, I actually hate Crysis because of its not so great gameplay. I also have a Wii for the same reason. If anything PC gamers are the ones that value gameplay more than they value graphics. Just ask around how many PC gamers tone down their settings so they can play a game. I know I used to tone down my UT2004 settings so I could play competitively. I don't see where you see the "resolution" but I agree with the "frames per second" part. I can't play a game under 25 FPS.

I'm going to agree with the Saturn comparison. I was a proud Saturn owner myself back then and I could not see why everyone was bashing my console. It had some great games and there were even more great games on the way, until Bernie Stolar made the infamous, "The Saturn is not our future" statement and pretty much killed all development for the console.

I'm just hoping that Jack Tretton doesn't make some stupid comment that does the same to the PS3.