Oh man, everyone seems so negative again.

I think that some people miss my point though, which is ok. When I say diverse content, I don't mean a jrpg. I don't mean platformers. I don't kiddy games.

I mean a true, quality, counter to the norm.

Anyone who has played games like the adventures of cookie and cream, rez, gitaroo man, and katamari damacy, know what I'm talking about. I'm not saying I want the same, just different kinds of it (like a jrpg on the 360, yippie), I want different. Those are the kind of games that I like, that the ps2 had, and that the ps3 really needs in my opinion but probably won't see many of due to high production costs and a very obvious push towards the hardcore crowd. For me, the ps1 and ps2 felt like the true game successors to the snes (gaming euphoria). the ps3 feels more like the successor to the xbox.

I'll go back to my jak and daxter post. I like the game cause it was a true platformer (no guns), it was rated E (anyone could play it) yet it wasn't dumbed down or overly kiddy. The difficulty felt nice too.

There's this big push towards "real." Look at that face, you can see the pours, it's so "real." See the way the character's expression changes when he's hit, it's so "real." Doesn't that look just like NYC, it's so "real." To be honest, the progression towards real is nice, but it doesn't mean much to me. My favorite fps was timesplitters 2. It was rated T (!), there was no blood (!), and it never looked all that "real" (!), yet it still felt like a great game to me.

My feelings aside, if you have rad games like the ones I'm throwing out that are either psn or (hopefully) full fledged ps3 titles, by all means, share.

You basically want innovation in your games.

Dude, I've bought Sony stuff since the PS1 (I got it at launch - spent over $500) and recently had 2 PS3s - and I see both MS and Sony for who they are. Both are in it to win it, but Sony has PROVEN they don't listen. You don't believe me? Look at this ...

Jack Tretton, Sony Computer Entertainment America president and CEO, has always been good for some mind-blowing quotes begging to be written down by any journalist within earshot. However, nothing, and we mean nothing, can compare to the latest one in EGM's March issue: "If you can find a PS3 anywhere in North America that's been on shelves for more than five minutes, I'll give you 1200 bucks for it."

I still have this issue - I was ROTFL and looking for an address to collect my $1,200. I was already shafted by not getting my 40 acres and a mule, and I wasn't gonna get shafted on this deal. My local Wal-Mart had 5-6 on the shelf just 3 weeks after launch.

There's a huge - HUGE disconnect between Sony and gamers. Why should they listen to you? You will buy their crap regardless. They know some folks are so clueless that even after reading a statement like this - "We have built up a certain brand equity over time since the launch of PlayStation in 1995 and PS2 in 2000 that the first five million are going to buy it, whatever it is, even it didn't have games," Reeves told Computer and Video Games in an interview - and that happened, but not as fast as they woulda liked. I saw the quote and just laughed. They are so high in that ivory tower, they need to be humbled.

It's not that I have beef with the PS3 - it's a good machine - not great, but good - but I have a prob with Sony and their arrogance and disconnect from gamers. I just can't believe how many have fell for the PS3 trap. A show of hands - How many of you bought a PS3 for a game that was currently out or for a game in the future? You'll be shocked how many folks got duped. I bought it to expand my game review coverage. I wanted full BC and got it. If I were a gamer and nothing else, I would have waited for it to drop to $250 and really closer to $199.

well it's not surprising most of the games out now are targeted toward the hardcore crowd because that's what most of the current PS3 install base is made up of - ppl willing to shell out 400+$ for a game console

^

But the fact is that the jump seemed so sudden. How do you go from a $300 ps1 to a $300 ps2 (both of which tried to market to everyone) and then a $600 ps3 that is simply about "we can out do the 360!"

My my, calm down.

I just said the "are you bitter?" line because you sounded like you were about to bite his head off, plus it was a joke.

"I have been fed up with Sony for a while, but it matters little to the cute girl at the counter at Starbucks. Take those rants, $3.50 to Starbucks and get some java. Yes, no one cares."

I never accused you of being a sony hater.
I agree they are very arrogant, but i disagree about your claim that they do not listen.
the examples you have shown proves nothing about your "they do not listen" claim, all youve shown is that they are very arrogant. The closest example you've provided is the BC argument, but sony couldnt help the BC situation, they had to cut it as a desperate attempt to reduce price. If you read the 40gb box though, there is a line there that BC might return through an update later on, which is good evidence that Sony taking out BC hardware was a premature move.

things I've listed to prove sony listens to their customers to some extent.

"IMO Sony does listen to their customers.
Lots of psp added features are asked by the customers.
themes, wallpapers, skype, playing music while browsing pictures,
playstation store and a bunch of others.

how about the ps3?
The boomerang, Divx, themes, wallpapers, rumble, soon to be in-game-xmb"

I didnt buy my ps3 because of potential, I bought it to take advantage of my HDTV, plus \ my 60gb only costed me around $200 because of the discount that came with the HDTV. Plus the games werent that bad.
GH3 and Rockband was and is still enough to tide me over for a long while, Not to mention COD4 and UT3.

Three reasons: first, Sony didn't want to shoot the golden goose, i.e. the PS2, which has continued to sell well, even at $129. Second: $300 in 2000 dollars is the equivalent of $389 in 2008 dollars, adjusted for inflation. So the launch PS3 was a bit higher than its predecessor, but not a huge leap beyond affordability. Third: it was crucial to have BluRay in every PS3, from the very beginning. That drove up costs - as well as the losses of the game division. But it was a brilliant long-term decision. The PS3 really is designed to last ten years, and to bring HD media and gaming to a huge global market (2 billion potential consumers).

2 things that really pissed me off were the now dualshock or rumble or wahtever you want to call it, and the sixaxis with mothion senseing and how every 4rd party devolper made games that suck using it, not that sony used it much better, like who actually wants to move there arms back and forth to Crawl?

@madskillz: No one is saying that Sony isn't arrogant, they came into this generation thinking the name brand "SONY" was good enough to sell a $500-600 console and failed miserably. Since then management changed alot in dealing with the press and consumers response. It's almost like their business model changed and were forced to become alot more humble and "mortal" after getting slaped in the face by MS and Nintendo. If you pay attention to their conferences and actions recently, you'll see that they have been listening to consumers. The thing is to make your argument, you're not seeing things from both ends.
BC is gone for the PS3 40gb, this sucks. But more people complained about price issues and BC is still an option
Boomerang controller was awful, they cut it off and put rumble back in.
In game XMB is still not here, they've said plenty of time that they were working on it.
People wanted "achievements", they decided to make a trophy system.
There are plenty of things that show that they are starting to listen more, whether it's forced by bad sales is one thing, but it's still there.
They are even removing the DRM from their music for God's sake.

Unless you're a few years out of college or got yourself a steady income, the difference between $389 and $600 is no small gap.... Especially when you throw in $60 games, $40 controllers and $30 blu ray movies. 

I do get what you're trying to say though.