CMoney said:

Are PS3 lovers the biggest suckers in the world?

The PS3 launches at $500/$600 dollars on promises of being a superior gaming console than the competition. Why? Blu-ray and the Cell. Sony says to fans "Sorry but if you want a PS3 you MUST pay extra money for a media format because we will profit from it in the the future." Sony fans not only buy the console anyway but actually support this horrible decision, even though it was a slap in the face to them and the people who were only interested in playing games on their gaming console. I don't know about you guys but when someone flips me the bird, I flip it back.

On principle I think it would have been a much better strategy to come out with a slightly less powerful system, with less features (drop full BC altogether and do selective software BC via download), to get a price point of $400/$500 to start with.  There is a premium to be payed to get the most powerful system this gen.  Despite what you obviously believe, it is still the best console, but it is too expensive.  I would still flip them off though because they were quite arrogant in their interviews.

- Sony decides to include the Cell processor in the PS3, giving the middle finger to all the devs who wanted an easy platform to develop games on. Not only is it a pain in the butt to develop for but it takes twice as long. What this means is, the fans (you) have to wait longer for your games and most develpoers have decided to go multiplatform because the Cell takes too much time and money too actually develop for. Not only that but the format requires MANDATORY installs for its games and the Cell has yet to prove its superiority over the Xbox's CPU. Sony fans still support this horrible decision.

Obviously they should have built a much better dev kit and software development suite.  The problem is not really the CPU but that MS has been building development software for longer than SONY has been in the gaming business.

- Sony decides to make PSN a free service. While this may seem great on the surface, there are repercussions for these actions. Sony forces the developers to run their own servers. Again making the developers lives even more troublesome then they already are after the horrble developing times. When the devs arent happy, you arent happy. Devs have to decided to switch consoles, more games go multiplat, less reasons to buy a PS3. Home gets announced and pushed back for 2 years only for it to not live up to expectations, while all this time and money could have been spent on the functionality of PSN. 2 years later, cross game invites, trophies, and custom soundtracks are still not mandatory. Again Sony fans not only support this decision but defend it 'til their dying breath. 

Your not gonna get everyone to agree, certainly not me.  SONY has a philosophy of being more open than MS, giving developers more leeway to do what they want.  You could ask studios if they like being able to run their own servers and some of them are going to say yes.  Trophies shouldn't be mandatory.  They are a gimmick, just like the much vaunted achievement system.  Not every gamer needs to strut there epeen gamer status. But again on principle I agree that they need to make PSN better, and needed to do it years ago.

What it comes down to is: You were forced to pay extra money for features that are useless to gaming. You are getting less games than the competition because the PS3 is hard to develop for. Features that have been mandatory in the competitions console have still not been implemented on the PS3. The promises made to you about the PS3 being superior than the competition in every way have been broken, most multiplat games are equal if not better on the competitors console. PSN is nothing compared to Live even if it is free. This generation is almost over (new Xbox in 2010) and Sony fans are still waiting for a miraculous comeback. Yet after all these decisions Sony fans still support the company and refuse to except these simple facts that Sony F'ed up.

My question to you guys is: How many times does a company have to push you around before you start to push back? How long can you defend these (obviously) horrible decisions? Do you not realize this gen is almost over? Arent you sick of sticking up for a company that decided its own agenda (blu-ray) were more important then your entertainment? How can you support a company that has obviously turned it's back on you?

 

In reality SONY has only messed up once, and we are already pushing back, so get off our backs.  If they pull this same thing with the PS4 am most likely going to shove them into 3rd slot for purchase next gen (right now its 1.SONY 2.Nintendo 3.MS).  This gen is MAYBE half over, but its no way almost over, your smoking too much pot.  As for the rest, this is your opinion, and a myth.  Sony chose blu-ray because of its potential space on disc for games and it was their flagship format.  Maybe SONY should have waited like MS did and put it in the PS4, but they didn't do it to shaft us, they did it because they thought it would make the PS3 the best value for the buck.  I don't think they turned their back on us, I think they made bad decisions and messed up.  Huge difference.

I didn't even know that the PS1 or PS2 "won" the console races. I just enjoyed the games. And I didn't know about E3 until E3 05 when they announced the PS3, and I first got G4.

I think it's easier to enjoy games when not worrying about sales.

Well said Dharh. Well said :)

as long as the ps3 doesnt get abandoned like the xbox and the games keep coming and stays around like the ps2 i wouldnt care if it was behind the 360 50M

ChronotriggerJM said: I dunno, I don't buy this "used to being in first" rubbish at all. When I jumped on board the Playstation 1, I did so for final fantasy 7. That was the reason. I had grown to love some of the playstaion games such as Metal Gear solid, final fantasy, chrono cross, disruptor, and a plethora of other PS1 rpg's ^_^ At that time I was a youngn' and didn't have any clue as to how these games worked, I just assumed that the next iterations of them would all be on the PS2 when it came out. And at that time, I thought sonic was just gay >_> and that's all that was ever shown with the dreamcast, so that was obviously a no-no. I had little interest at the time for the next iteration of Nintendo games, so going with the PS3 was just the obvious choice for me. The PS2 carved a legacy of great exclusive titles, and many exclusive IP's with Sony. So when this generation started, the 360 was the first out of the gate, but I didn't care about any of it's original exclusives, considering I had never owned one, and the only game anyone ever played on it when I did see one was halo, which I thought was meh... Anyways! I figured I'd just wait for the PS3, because it was more functional that the 360 (blu-ray player, came with a hard drive, free online play, gorgeous dvd upscaling, etc etc), and I knew some of Sony's games would be making an appearance on this machine ^_^ Never in my life did I ever give a crap that the PS3 was suppose to follow some "legacy". I never cared about first place at all >_> I just followed the software, and so far Sony's done a damn good job of retaining amazing software. So if I was to jump onto a console right off the bat, I'd look for the one that does the most for me, and Sony's always seemed to deliver that. Sure they're the most expensive, but I enjoy and use the features of the console religiously, so they're very important. And it's the other "fanboy's" that keep attempting to tell me that they're not when they clearly are @_@

But if it was the PS family games you bought the console for, it's not much of a stretch to say there wasn't any reason to buy a PS3 right off the bat since none of those games were available until quite a bit later. Certainly not reason enough for a $500-600 console.

Personally, I found myself playing a lot of PS2 games on it initially as someone who paid $600 for the first one I could find on shelves, but Blu-Ray and a 1080p display (which I wanted) made it matter a lot less since I enjoy movies as much as games, but barring a few worthwhile first year releases, if all you wanted were PS3 games, you would have been better off waiting until well into the second year of release.

And as someone who does use more or less all of the PS3's functions (a big part of why I like the console) I really don't have anything to say to anyone who feels they paid too much, or that they won't pay that much because they don't/won't.

Nobody needs an excuse NOT to buy anything. lol

 

I also don't know how people characterize making a super high end piece of tech as a bad thing. I for one appreciate that Sony goes cutting edge with their consoles (PS2 with DVD, PS3 with Blu Ray and the cell). I may be an annomoly but I would MUCH rather pay a few hundred bucks for extra quality then deal with a Sony Wii.

I mean I spent 2000 on my reciever, 2500 on my HDTV and 5000 on my speakers (all of those at "sale" prices) so I was happy to get a console worth using that equipment with. Some people spend thousands on big rims and a bouncing car, I spend it on my living room entertainment center, to each his own.  

Ever hooked a Wii or PS2 up to a high end system and a nice big HDTV even with component cables? It's not a pretty sight.

The 360 isn't as bad, but even with the 360 there are a lot of things left out (wireless, more powerful processor, swappable hard drive, free online ect ect) that I appreciate the PS3 having. There are certainly less high end consumers then casual consumers and I wouldn't expect parents to get a 600 dollar PS3 for their kid, but I for one appreciate a console at the high end of the market existing and am more then willing to pay for it. I'd see an underpowered PS2.5 as more of a failure then the truly awesome piece of hardware the PS3 is.

Impulsivity said: I have no problem with the PS3's position, it has had more sales then the 360 did at an equal point in its life cycle. What I do have a problem with is those who pretend that the 360 is in some great shape and the PS3 is doomed. The 360 has barely sold more then the PS3 this year and would have been heavily outpaced if they hadn't done a huge price cut. Even with that cut the 360 is selling barely more this year then last year (while the PS3 has increased 60% year over year). If the PS3 is doomed the 360 is just as doomed since it is only ahead from the head start (and barely ahead at that). Both are so far behind the Wii I can understand posts that say "Wii trounces PS3" or "Wii trounces 360" but "360 trounces PS3" is kinda silly. That is like last gen a bunch of posts about how "Xbox trounces Gamecube" or vice versa when they were so far behind it really didn't matter a whole lot. When the 360 really starts putting up numbers that make it competitive with the Wii then start talking about it like it has a real future. As it stands both HD consoles are getting trounced by the casual Wii pretty severely. Again for emphasis though, 360 sales are more or less flat year over year despite the price cut (without the cut they would have been down significantly year over year), having to cut to the bone on price to just maintain prior year sales is not what the "winning" console does. The Wii is still 250, now 2nd highest in price, and sells double the 360. Those who win the silver in the olympics after falling behind by a full lap (despite a long head start) seldom gloat about how they beat the bronze winner by a few split seconds.

That was a great post. I agree with pretty much everything!

 

DMeisterJ said: I didn't even know that the PS1 or PS2 "won" the console races. I just enjoyed the games. And I didn't know about E3 until E3 05 when they announced the PS3, and I first got G4. I think it's easier to enjoy games when not worrying about sales.

and yet... you often seem to worry about them.

 

 

@Green,

See but I don't have this huge issue with buying a console on "potential". As I mentioned, it still had many functions which I found quite useful ^_^ I LOVE HD movies, I actually liked some of it's release titles :P And it played PS2 games, in which I had plenty to catch up on. The PS3 was (to me) worth the original price tag.

Besides, the 360 literally didn't have any games that looked even remotely interesting until the PS3 was out :P In which case, I think it had one.... I had no reason to move on to the 360, the games were terrible and it didn't do anything new for me :x

As a PS3 owner, a console's sales have nothing to do with my buying decisions or whether or not I enjoy the console, else I'd have never bought a Saturn or Dreamcast.

Bickering about whether the PS3 or 360 is in second or third place is in my opinion very petty and pathetic because no matter which one is ahead of the other, they will still be light years behind the Wii.

If sales are such a big concern, then both PS3 AND 360 owners should be bothered about the fact that their consoles are being annihilated in sales by the Wii.