By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Why All The PS3 Hate?

MDMAniac on 22 December 2008
ZenfoldorVGI said:

Another stupid thing about the article is when he said this:

Metal Gear Solid 4, Heavenly Sword, Uncharted and Resistance 2 are all MUST HAVE TITLES.

 

(fixed) THIS 



Around the Network
jake_the_fake1 on 22 December 2008

There are those that hate what they can not afford.



Lolcislaw on 22 December 2008

Im not really suprised about why PS3 gets so much negativity from people:

Last two generations Sony was dominating it's fans were ignoring and ridiculing Nintendo, Sega and MS now some people feel like it is a good time to get back at them.

Sony was 1st last generation, now they are probably stuck with 3rd place, people perceive them as a looser.

Sony has lost so many exclusives GTA, DMC, FF etc. etc. Xbox fans see their console lineup as superior.

Many Sony fanboys are delusional and aggresive, people dont like that approach.

Sony PR and their approach to customer with comments like "Get 2nd Job" etc. etc. And console price still remains extremely high for most of gamers.

That's only few overall reasons in my opinion, i dont hate PS3 i just dont see it as a product for me (i really like PSP for example), what i dont like is sometimes dellusional and over aggresive fanboys (of every console, luckily there is not that many of them) yet Sony fanboys this generation seem most frustrated.



numonex on 22 December 2008

Most of the good HD games are available on Xbox 360. PS3 does not offer value for money. A lot of people do not like Sony as a corporation so they do not buy PS3.



Ender on 22 December 2008
MikeB said:
Fumanchu said:
Mike do you believe that these games warrant the price difference?

You're a technical specification wizard...but average joe sees Gears 2 running alongside Resistance 2 on demo units in any game retailer, then looks at the price of the consoles and something doesn't sit right.

It varies from person to person, for me it does. IMO Gears of War 2 roughly is "as good" as it going to get on the 360, there's not much technical headroom left.

 

This is so absurd.  MikeB is not a techincal wizard if he really believes this.



Around the Network
Omega_Phazon_Pirate. on 22 December 2008

"They hate it coz they can't afford it. And it has the best games Myahahahaha..."
I know you said jk after that but I've seen so many fanboys say "people don't buy it because they are too pour." That really does have the power to turn people off.



                           

Usul on 22 December 2008

It's obvious, that's people who were supporters of Microsoft or Nintendo in the previous gen... If you don't like a consoles no need to play it, their hate was originated years ago. How fun!



Play my LittleBigPlanet level: Mystic Runner. Thanks!

rubido on 22 December 2008
Pristine20 said:
Slimebeast said:
Sigh. A wall of text written by an unknown blogger who obviously is a Sony fanboy.

How's a sony fanboy just calling for people to enjoy whatever console they have?

I'm not too familiar with the site. Someone linked the article from the afterdawn forums. Apparently the guy who wrote this has posted his fair share of sony hate too but he too thinks it's getting ridiculous this christmas (from the linker who's a regular follower of that website).

Give the author some credit, he knows more about gaming than CNN  and TIME

 

Kind of late to the mix but...

Ohhh please. Don't come with that one. If the word is to enjoy whatever console they have, then that blogger should have done the same and not spent all his time writing this article. The poster is obviously bothered by all the news about the ps3 and that is the first indication of fanboyism. Then comes the rest of the text just to make sure this is a fanboy post.

Is there fanboy hate by some? YES. But I really don't think it's much. The problem right now is that all that is happening to sony is good for the news sites. They have something to write about. It's a good story to write about a king that loses it all. People see it as hate because they are fanboys and don't want to see any negativity related to their favorite console or its maker.

Is it all hate? NO!! Most of it is news (coming from many sources because each site writes their story). For anyone that comes and complains about all the hate and that people should be enjoying their consoles is obviously bothered by reading the truth (with some exagerations here and there... but these are exceptions). These are actually the people that should be enjoying their games and not being bothered by this trend. For better or worse, it's going to pass as it will not be news forever.



Pristine20 on 22 December 2008
misterd said:
Pristine20 said:
misterd said:
Pristine20 said:
December 16th, 2008

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

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

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

 

 

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.

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

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

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.

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.

 

You must have misunderstood my definition of flop or maybe you thought I was joking when I called the ps3 a flop myself. Well a flop is a product that doesn't meet it' s sales expectations...simple as that. So the ps3 by all means is one big flop. All those facts you're mentioning add to reasons why it's considered a failure but I'd reiterate as much as the ps3 might have flopped, it's NOT doomed.

There's a difference. A doomed product is one that by for  all intents and purposes has no future in sight. It's too early to call it doomed thats the point of the article. If 400,000 consumers still think the product is worth buying even after reading all the worthless gibberish floating around then it's hardly a product that is headed for the gallows. The only way the ps3 is discontinued is if sony decides they don't want to further their foray into the gaming biz. That's the only way, no magical sales figure from ninty or M$ can kick them out so all these comparisons are all for naught.

I'll stand by my point that TIME and CNN posted worthless garbage. With major errors like that in their articles, you still think they deserve an iota of regard for their posts? lol

 



"Dr. Tenma, according to you, lives are equal. That's why I live today. But you must have realised it by now...the only thing people are equal in is death"---Johann Liebert (MONSTER)

"WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives"---Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler

Skiman on 22 December 2008
ZenfoldorVGI said:
Slimebeast said:
Sigh. A wall of text written by an unknown blogger who obviously is a Sony fanboy.

 

Bingo. That article made my head hurt, and I wish I wouldn't have read it.

You know why all the PS3 hate?

Because the freakin' thing costs 400 dollars in a recession and we can't all afford one.

It's over-priced, I dont' care if it sucks your foot and fixes you a sandwich.

The reason it's overpriced, is because Sony used it as a tie in to hock its new media format, and continues forcing gamers to pay the price.

Sony deserves the hate, and imo, they deserve the poor sales as well. Start treating consumers well, and change with our needs, not your own, Sony. If you do something dumb that costs us time and money(RRoD, BR) then fix it for free. Don't just keep on pwning us with it, ffs.

The fact that this console is still 460 dollars after tax is insane, and someone deserves to pay for this horrible error.

 

 Um ok. Considering Sony LOSES money on every console sold, and it is the same price as a blu-ray PLUS an awesome game system, how can you say it's overpriced? Sony does the best they can without losing a bunch of money on each console. If they really didn't care about the consumers (which doesn't make sense in the first place, because they are competing against two other platforms at the moment, so how would that help their sales one bit, which they are trying to increase?) they would have not dropped the price at all from when the ps3 launched until now. They do the best they can to keep the ps3 price level to blu-ray price change, so if the price of blu-ray drops, the price of ps3 drops as well. So in the end, you don't make sense when you say the ps3 is "overpriced", and they don't "treat consumers well". The 360 came out over a year before the ps3 did, and therefore had time to drop the price before the ps3 came out, making for the lower price right now, and as for the wii...it's just made with less-costing materials.