Why All The PS3 Hate?

by Torrence Davis

If there’s one thing I’ve noticed this past couple of weeks, it’s the increased amount of disdain for Sony’s Playstation 3. It’s almost as if the whole industry has something against Sony for winning the last two generations. First Time Magazine, then Alleyinsider and now Kotaku. There’s a name for this and it’s called media sabotage.

And what  follows is fanboy whining.

Look, you win, expectations are higher. If the Royals have a losing season next year, no one will blink. But if the Phillies get 90 wins and fail to make the playoffs, it'll be a disappointment.

It is not unfair to criticize Sony for owning 70% ofthe gaming community just 2 years ago, and letting it all slip through their fingers. They deserve to be beat about the head and shoulders for losing touch with the gaming community, just as Nintendo was a decade ago. 

Who would have thought that after the NPD results were posted that sites like Kotaku would start kicking Sony while their down?

That's when you kick someone. Well, truth be told the media only kicks when something is down OR up - otherwise its not making headlines or selling magazines. But don't expect the media to put a happy spin on "Sony loses 50% of gaming market; flushes a decade of profits down the toilet."

Sony isn’t down though. They’re performing well considering the cost of the system.

Sony will be doing well when fanboys can say its doing well without putting qualifiers on the statement (like "considering the cost of the system.")

Of course many wouldn’t know this if they took some time to read some of the headlines on N4FB(News 4 Fanboys), Alleyinsider or Time Magazine. Since when is Time magazine experts on video games? Isn’t that our territory? Time Magazine made a huge mistake in a story they wrote about Home last week. They quoted the PS3 as having sold only 200,000 units in the US.

Starting today, owners of the pricey PlayStation 3 — there are nearly 17 million of them worldwide, a scant 200,000 of whom live in the U.S. — can download the software for free via Sony’s PlayStation Network

How is it that such a respected magazine as Time, fucks up so hard on the numbers? I was happy to see that gamezine.co.uk put them in their place and got them to correct the mistake not once, but twice.

Yep. They fucked up the numbers. Media blows gaming news. Nothing new here. But Time covers EVERYTHING - politics, economics, entertainment,technology etc. One missed point doesn't mean Sony's doing well.

Now let’s take a look at Alleyinsider. Eric Krangel posted an article stating that Sony’s PS3 is a sinking ship based on their November performance. Sony sold 378,000 PS3’s in November this year and sold 466,000 in November last year. Because of this, their numbers are technically lower than last year,

Not technically. They DID sell fewer consoles this year, period. For the first half of the year everyone pointed to how sales had IMPROVED over last year to support how much better the system was doing, so its only fair to use the same benchmark now.

but how is selling 378,000 consoles a bad thing?

Because fewer people are buying it this year than last. What's hard to grasp here? When was the last time a console in its second year saw significant declines year over year?

Eric said some pretty harsh things that are sure to put off mom and pop from buying the console this Christmas. Let’s look at some of the crap they were spewing:

So why is the PS3 flopping so badly?

1. It’s the most expensive console on the market, $150 - $200 more than its rivals. Even if you believe the video game industry is “recession-proof” (it isn’t), a tanking economy makes consumers more price-conscious.

This is a true statement but why did he say the PS3 was flopping? If you want to know what it’s like when a console flops, take a gander at the Atari Jaguar. That was a flop…but still a fun system. Not only did Sony move a ton of consoles in November, but they also moved that same number in Blu-Ray players thanks to the PS3.

Just because the PS3 isn't flopping (which isn't the word I would use) as badly as the Jaguar, a poster child for flopping consoles, doesn't mean the PS3 is not flopping.

2. The PS3’s big bonus is its ability to double as a Blu-Ray player. Too bad no one seems to care about hi-def DVDs. The differences between Blu-Ray and DVD are hard to see on a TV less than 50″.

So let’s correct his statement here. First of all, people DO care about high definition. Do you think people are buying HD televisions because they don’t care? Of course not. They want HDtv. Most of them may not understand Blu-Ray or HD-DVD for that matter, but once they see it, I’m sure they’ll invest more money into it in the future. It’s not as popular as DVD at the moment and I think that in the future DVD will always be there, but co-existing with Blu-Ray. As far as not seeing a difference between Blu-Ray and DVD on tv’s less than 50″, he’s wrong on that too. I would have to say that 42″ is the cutoff where there is a blur between Blu-Ray and DVD. It may even be less than that. The smaller the screen, the harder it is to make out the details. On those tv’s larger than 42″, Blu-Ray looks marvelous.

Lots of people still don't know what BluRay is, and  saying "they'll care once they see it", beyond being an unsupported supposition, doesn't mean people are wanting BluRay now. Even so things are not what they were 2 years ago, when the PS3, even at $600, was the cheapest BR player around. Now you can readily find $300 BR players, and even cheaper ones ifyou go for earlier models.

3. The PS3 just doesn’t have any must-have titles exclusive to the console. “LittleBigPlanet” has generated decent buzz but isn’t a game-changer, and neither is Sony’s new virtual world “Home.”

Ok here is where the author really must have been beat by the idiot stick. How in the fuck can you say that the PS3 doesn’t have any must-have titles exclusive to the console?!!? Metal Gear Solid 4, Heavenly Sword, Uncharted and Resistance 2 are all MUST HAVE TITLES. LBP has generated more than a buzz. It’s becoming a cult sensation. Does this guy have an internet connection? As far as Home goes, it’s a beta, leave it alone until it’s a finished product.

You lose all credibility when you cite "Heavenly Sword" as a "must have" title.  And "cult sensations" are not must have titles either, or they wouldn't be "must have". A must have title, as used in context of this article, means a game that significantly impacts the market. There are very few of them each generation - Mario 64 and Final Fantasy VII two generations ago, Grand Theft Auto 3 and Halo/Halo2 last generation, and, so far, WiiSports this generation. 

Speaking of Home, that has been the center of a lot of negative attention from the press. Why oh why are we slandering a product that is in beta form? Get on Home, use it and put it away until it’s updated again. I think it’s funny that you have to wait for an alley to free up so you can take a turn at bowling. Isn’t that what it’s like in real life though?

Maybe Home is being "slandered" because it is more than a year late and no one seems to really care about it, at least not enough to lure new gamers to the console.

Last on my hit list is Kotaku. They posted an article about the poor performance of Little Big Planet and Valkyria Chronicles. Little Big Planet has passed the 1 million mark. How is that a poor performance? Valkyria Chronicles still needs more time. I’m sure fans of Japanese strategy games will pick it up accordingly. Kotaku has had a Sony chip on their shoulder ever since Dave Karraker blacklisted them for posting info that was embargoed. Even though they got their A-list status back from Sony, they still continually post negative articles about the PS3. This is just one of many. Deep down this article is a call to PS3 owners to start buying more games, but it’s execution is poor and wreaks of more media sabotage.

Many were expecting LBP to sell 4-5 million. If it had those sales it would have a chance of being a cultural phenomenon that could improve the PS3s fortunes. Instead, its Resident Evil: Umbrella Chronicles.

Sony is doing a fine job of handling the PS3.

Other than losing the market it used to dominate, and losing every last penny they had made off the PS1 and PS2, and continuing to lose money going into the consoles third year, yeah, its doing a ****ing phenominal job.

Unlike the PS1 and PS2 before it, this time there are other consoles competing against PS3.

N64. Saturn. DreamCast. GameCube. XBox. I'm beginning to suspect you couldn't buy a clue with Bill Gates VISA card.

As for Time magazine and Alleyinsider, let the game journalists handle the game journalism. You’ve done a piss poor job at it. Please stick to politics and finance. Kotaku, you don’t even need the traffic. Please post more responsibly.

Yeah, as long as they piss on the console you love, they should shut the **** up. And since I voted for McCain, I'd like them to stop covering politics too. And come to think on it, I don't like the way they're saying bad things about the economy. I think they should just stick to printing letters to the editor.

At last a gaming journalist agrees with me. I wouldn't expect our resident sony informant, Gebx, to post this one so I had to do it

That is why people hate it.  NOT because it is the successor to the best console ever created but because of thousands of people like you claiming the PS2 or sony what not is the best console ever, or best company ever.  If you guys would refer to most SUCCESFUL instead of throwing in your OPINIONS as being fact then maybe people wouldn't hate you so much and want to post any article saying something bad about sony.  And when i say you I ain't attacking you directly but to all huge sony fans that do what I posted above.

So what was the competition back then?

Seriously, the article ignores the competition because they were virtually non-existant. When ps2 was leading, I rarely saw talk of the xbox or GC. Not the same this gen. The fact that we've spent so much time these past weeks discussing last place ps3 is proof enough. As much as we praise the wii, it still has nowhere near the market penetration of ps2 and ps1 and they didn't even need to introduce anything revolutionary to get that far.

Funny how the one journalist who has a clue is also the only one who happens to agree with you.

Why they're selling isn't important. The point is that they're selling period. Most people are resistant to change and would not budge except they had no choice. Then when they change, they realize that it isn't all that bad. Many technological movements are like this.

Seriously, many of you are just picking at straws to thow one more bone at the article or the ps3 that it's getting pathetic.

OMG, you try desperately to make the ps3 look like it's flopping. Well, you're late, it already flopped. However, the point remains that the media is blowing it out of proportion. You may not like the console or anything it has to offer but millions beg to differ.

Except for the part where I say I wouldn't describe it as flopping. And I don't believe I mentioned anything about what I do or do not like about the console personally. As for the millions who beg to differ, currently its still fewer millions than bought the GameCube and N64, and one fifth as many millions who purchased the PS2.  

As I've stated countless times, the term "must-have" title is thrown around too much. However, it's obvious from the context of the article that the guy used the term to deride those who claim that there are no games worth having on ps3. you mention FF7, GTA3 and others. If FF7 was so must have, why did 80+ million ps1 owners not buy it? See the point? The term is meaningless.

Apparantly you don't see the point. By your argument, GTA3 wasn't a must have title given 100million PS2 owners didn't buy that. The phrase e is only meaningless out of context. In context they are talking about game changers, while the criticism attempts to turn it around to mean "games worth owning." Either the critic is functionally illiterate or dishonest, but either way the criticism is invalid.  

As for FF7 it is widely seen as one of, if not the, title that cemented the PS1s position over the N64, just s GTA3 was for the PS2. That is why I cited it as an example of the sort of "must have" title the original article referred to. 

Don't hate on heavenly sword if you never played it. The worst I've heard from people I know who actually played the game is that it's too short which is funny because that comment only gets thrown around when a game is good. Noone finishes a game they consider plain bad.

Outside "I really like the game", there's no way Heavenly Sword can be considered "must have." Reviews are good, at best, and sales aren't anything to crow about.

BS has to be called out when BS is spewed no matter who owns what console or who voted for who. Thats whats happening in this case. TIME and CNN posted nothing but pure gibberish and got called out for it. They should have gotten away with it in your opinion?

They got called on one BS statistic. Otherwise you have no solid arguments against the rest of the article.

Wherever did you get the idea that sony lost the profits from the ps1 era? Now you sound like TIME and CNN. I guess birds of the same feather flock together. No wonder you're so approving of their methods. Yet I won't be surprised if it turns out that you were one of those who thought that CNN was in the tank for liberals.

I do recall reading the stat somewhere, but it was months ago. More recent articles I can find show they have lost more than they made since the PS2 launch, so at the very least its eating into the PS1 profits (which, like most consoles, also ran at a deficit the first few years).

And I'm not the one crying media bias here, or chosing which article to post because I like its plumage.

Seriously though many peoples' posts read off like sony left a chip on their shoulder that they can't get off. You claim that people should stop whining and STFU but you post reads off like you really should be the one to STFU

In the context of this discussion, they're not. No one cares who is buying the wii because it can fit in their living room space vs those who want to play wii fit. What's relevant to the article is that the wii is the best selling console right now. Please focus on the main topic at hand and don't join others who seem hell bent on nitpicking insignificant portions of the article because it presents an opposite viewpoint of the ps3 than we've become accustomed to reading.

I told no one to STFU-  It was the original acticle and poster that was telling Time to STFU - I just mocked them for it.

Now you still haven't addressed any major points:

1) Sony has lost 3 billion on the PS3, and looks to lose even more.

A: PS1 lost alot too when it was released, PS2 lost even more, PS3 lost even more then them. Sony knew this would happen already, they don't care. Their plan is to recoup on the losses down the line with game sales and then make profit off of the system later down the 10 year life cycle(and yes, I said 10 year life cycle)

2) Sony has dropped from a 70% to 20% market share.

A: They are the most exspensive on the market which puts them out of the reach of common consumers within this recession. This is temerary. Casualty of trying to be innovative with their hardware. Will be recouped within 10 year life cycle so who cares.

3) The PS3 still doesn't have a game that looks like it'll reverse their fortune.

A: Playstation has never survived off of one game. It has always been the mass bulk of quality that drove the PS franchise to the top. THey are doing the same this gen as well. Refer to IGNs charts on PS3 excels at quality games over quantity as the 360 does. THe PS3 also has more quality games then 360 does. When the PS3's price drops all of this will become much more apparent to the consumer and they will realize what a marvelous thing the PS3 is.Oh yea, 10 year life cycle!

4) The console is now selling less than it did a year ago, is firmly entrenched in third place, and is losing ground each week - slowly to the 360, quickly to the Wii.

A: Yea, It started selling less then last year right around the same time the 360 went for a price cut. But no, don't mention that little tid bit for they have nothing to do with each other....right?

You explain to me how these facts don't show the PS3 as a major misstep by Sony, and I'll concede that Time was completely off the mark.

A: The PS3 issues are simply being massively overblown for different reasons by media and fanboys alike. Here are some facts to throw into the hater machine. PS3 has more quality games then the 360 had each consecutive year in it's life span. PS3 is better made hardware by a mile then the 360 OR Wii is and is truthfully the best deal for a system. PS3 does just about on par with the 360, its main competitor at a much higher price point. The PS3 is/ or at least was gaining on the one year lead the 360 had on it. The PS3 can out last the other two systems with pure staying power, seeing as they have taken the time to add in features and things that later on down the line consumers will definitely be looking at. Lastly, BluRay, check the recent sales on N4G and other sites, it is prevailing. Oh and 10 year life cycle, BELIEVE IT!!!!