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

Forums - Sony Discussion - Would it bother you if the PS3 was Sony's last console?

terislb on 23 January 2009

would be scary because.. it can only be for the worse if microsoft is left without competion ...since nintendo is aiming for another customer demographic than sony and ms ..and i dont see a new sega or atari console coming



Around the Network
Just2Fresh on 23 January 2009

It would kind of bother me because then their would'nt really be much competition in the console market...as nintendo is catering toa different market than the 360 and Ps3...So if Sony went out then MS would just bring out a Crappy system and force you to buy it since you have no choice...Just look at the Madden Franchise after they bought the NFL license their games have SUCKED WORSE than before...Competition is great for consumers without it technology would never evolve



Torillian on 23 January 2009
Ronster316 said:
Torillian said:
Ronster316 said:
bouzane said:
Ronster316 said:
disolitude said:
Not at all. Sony came in to the business by hogging 3rd party games with cash...putting Sega(much superior gaming company) out of hardware and almost crippling Nintendos console business.

If they left someone else would jsut take their spot and pick up their studios...

 

100% true

I second the above statement.

(Saved me from going in to an anti sony rant lol)

Conviniently forget to mention that the Saturn's contrived hardware architecture and Nintendo's poor treatment of third party developers is what allowed Sony to enter the market and dominate. Take off the rose tinted glasses and recognize that Sega and Nintendo did these things to themselves.

 

 

Sonys MONEY did more damage the Sega and Nintendo than Sega and Nintendo did to themselves.

They preyed on REAL GAMES DEVELOPERS and fed them to the wolves.

Bottom line______________________

 

And how exactly have you proven this theory?  Y'know, other than just believing what you want to believe.

OT: it would bother me because I like Playstation, not particularly Sony.  If some other company came in and took over the playstation brand then I'd be fine with it on face value, barring whatever changes they decide to put forth that may or may not annoy me.

oh forget it, yes, it was Sonys amazing gaming division of 1994-1999 that made all the difference right?

Oh wait? they had no damn games in 1994 and relied on 3rd party support to get them to the top and not their own gaming division talent.

How is it a proven theory? so you think the Saturn and N64 would have been failures if sony wasn't around? Lots of 3rd party developers took Sonys easy money rather than supporting two Hardware and software legends.

So why do i blame sony and not developers? simple, sony were the ones with the cheque book.

But both Nintendo and Sega also did things to make their own consoles failures without the inclusion of Sony.  So yes they would've succeeded if there were no other competition, but I'm not so certain that they would've succeeded if they had competition that didn't throw around money like Sony did, because they still would've had their own situations working against them.

And since you have shown me nothing proving how Sony's monetary actions were the most meaningful to the downfall of N64 and Saturn, and I know you're very much biased against Sony and would like to blame them for all the troubles in the world, I have no reason to believe you.

 



...

Ronster316 on 23 January 2009
Torillian said:
Ronster316 said:
Torillian said:
Ronster316 said:
bouzane said:
Ronster316 said:
disolitude said:
Not at all. Sony came in to the business by hogging 3rd party games with cash...putting Sega(much superior gaming company) out of hardware and almost crippling Nintendos console business.

If they left someone else would jsut take their spot and pick up their studios...

 

100% true

I second the above statement.

(Saved me from going in to an anti sony rant lol)

Conviniently forget to mention that the Saturn's contrived hardware architecture and Nintendo's poor treatment of third party developers is what allowed Sony to enter the market and dominate. Take off the rose tinted glasses and recognize that Sega and Nintendo did these things to themselves.

 

 

Sonys MONEY did more damage the Sega and Nintendo than Sega and Nintendo did to themselves.

They preyed on REAL GAMES DEVELOPERS and fed them to the wolves.

Bottom line______________________

 

And how exactly have you proven this theory?  Y'know, other than just believing what you want to believe.

OT: it would bother me because I like Playstation, not particularly Sony.  If some other company came in and took over the playstation brand then I'd be fine with it on face value, barring whatever changes they decide to put forth that may or may not annoy me.

oh forget it, yes, it was Sonys amazing gaming division of 1994-1999 that made all the difference right?

Oh wait? they had no damn games in 1994 and relied on 3rd party support to get them to the top and not their own gaming division talent.

How is it a proven theory? so you think the Saturn and N64 would have been failures if sony wasn't around? Lots of 3rd party developers took Sonys easy money rather than supporting two Hardware and software legends.

So why do i blame sony and not developers? simple, sony were the ones with the cheque book.

But both Nintendo and Sega also did things to make their own consoles failures without the inclusion of Sony.  So yes they would've succeeded if there were no other competition, but I'm not so certain that they would've succeeded if they had competition that didn't throw around money like Sony did, because they still would've had their own situations working against them.

And since you have shown me nothing proving how Sony's monetary actions were the most meaningful to the downfall of N64 and Saturn, and I know you're very much biased against Sony and would like to blame them for all the troubles in the world, I have no reason to believe you.

 

You have your beliefs and i have mine.

Big money "corporations" FTW huh?

Buying your way to the top FTW huh?

If sony go under its nothing more than they deserve IMO.

 



haxxiy on 23 January 2009
bouzane said:
After Nintendo lost my interest in the 5th gen and Sega dropped out at the 6th gen I couldn't bare to see Sony drop out in this gen. I really don't want to see the day that the only system I'll be gaming on is my PC.

This.



 

 

 

 

 

Around the Network
Pristine20 on 23 January 2009

OMG Ronster316 has infected this thread. It was a matter of time.



"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

Snake on 23 January 2009
Ronster316 said:
Torillian said:
Ronster316 said:
Torillian said:
Ronster316 said:
bouzane said:
Ronster316 said:
disolitude said:
Not at all. Sony came in to the business by hogging 3rd party games with cash...putting Sega(much superior gaming company) out of hardware and almost crippling Nintendos console business.

If they left someone else would jsut take their spot and pick up their studios...

 

100% true

I second the above statement.

(Saved me from going in to an anti sony rant lol)

Conviniently forget to mention that the Saturn's contrived hardware architecture and Nintendo's poor treatment of third party developers is what allowed Sony to enter the market and dominate. Take off the rose tinted glasses and recognize that Sega and Nintendo did these things to themselves.

 

 

Sonys MONEY did more damage the Sega and Nintendo than Sega and Nintendo did to themselves.

They preyed on REAL GAMES DEVELOPERS and fed them to the wolves.

Bottom line______________________

 

And how exactly have you proven this theory?  Y'know, other than just believing what you want to believe.

OT: it would bother me because I like Playstation, not particularly Sony.  If some other company came in and took over the playstation brand then I'd be fine with it on face value, barring whatever changes they decide to put forth that may or may not annoy me.

oh forget it, yes, it was Sonys amazing gaming division of 1994-1999 that made all the difference right?

Oh wait? they had no damn games in 1994 and relied on 3rd party support to get them to the top and not their own gaming division talent.

How is it a proven theory? so you think the Saturn and N64 would have been failures if sony wasn't around? Lots of 3rd party developers took Sonys easy money rather than supporting two Hardware and software legends.

So why do i blame sony and not developers? simple, sony were the ones with the cheque book.

But both Nintendo and Sega also did things to make their own consoles failures without the inclusion of Sony.  So yes they would've succeeded if there were no other competition, but I'm not so certain that they would've succeeded if they had competition that didn't throw around money like Sony did, because they still would've had their own situations working against them.

And since you have shown me nothing proving how Sony's monetary actions were the most meaningful to the downfall of N64 and Saturn, and I know you're very much biased against Sony and would like to blame them for all the troubles in the world, I have no reason to believe you.

 

You have your beliefs and i have mine.

Big money "corporations" FTW huh?

Buying your way to the top FTW huh?

If sony go under its nothing more than they deserve IMO.

 

 

 How is SONY's fault they have a lot of money to spend on PlayStation? They have a lot of money so they are using it to make PlayStation brand better.They have a right to do that.There is nothing illegal about company trying to make their product good. Maybe SEGA should tried to spend more money on 3rd party developers than on 1st party developers.



Cactus on 23 January 2009
Snake said:
Ronster316 said:
Torillian said:
Ronster316 said:
Torillian said:
Ronster316 said:
bouzane said:
Ronster316 said:
disolitude said:
Not at all. Sony came in to the business by hogging 3rd party games with cash...putting Sega(much superior gaming company) out of hardware and almost crippling Nintendos console business.

If they left someone else would jsut take their spot and pick up their studios...

 

100% true

I second the above statement.

(Saved me from going in to an anti sony rant lol)

Conviniently forget to mention that the Saturn's contrived hardware architecture and Nintendo's poor treatment of third party developers is what allowed Sony to enter the market and dominate. Take off the rose tinted glasses and recognize that Sega and Nintendo did these things to themselves.

 

 

Sonys MONEY did more damage the Sega and Nintendo than Sega and Nintendo did to themselves.

They preyed on REAL GAMES DEVELOPERS and fed them to the wolves.

Bottom line______________________

 

And how exactly have you proven this theory?  Y'know, other than just believing what you want to believe.

OT: it would bother me because I like Playstation, not particularly Sony.  If some other company came in and took over the playstation brand then I'd be fine with it on face value, barring whatever changes they decide to put forth that may or may not annoy me.

oh forget it, yes, it was Sonys amazing gaming division of 1994-1999 that made all the difference right?

Oh wait? they had no damn games in 1994 and relied on 3rd party support to get them to the top and not their own gaming division talent.

How is it a proven theory? so you think the Saturn and N64 would have been failures if sony wasn't around? Lots of 3rd party developers took Sonys easy money rather than supporting two Hardware and software legends.

So why do i blame sony and not developers? simple, sony were the ones with the cheque book.

But both Nintendo and Sega also did things to make their own consoles failures without the inclusion of Sony.  So yes they would've succeeded if there were no other competition, but I'm not so certain that they would've succeeded if they had competition that didn't throw around money like Sony did, because they still would've had their own situations working against them.

And since you have shown me nothing proving how Sony's monetary actions were the most meaningful to the downfall of N64 and Saturn, and I know you're very much biased against Sony and would like to blame them for all the troubles in the world, I have no reason to believe you.

 

You have your beliefs and i have mine.

Big money "corporations" FTW huh?

Buying your way to the top FTW huh?

If sony go under its nothing more than they deserve IMO.

 

 

 How is SONY's fault they have a lot of money to spend on PlayStation? They have a lot of money so they are using it to make PlayStation brand better.They have a right to do that.There is nothing illegal about company trying to make their product good. Maybe SEGA should tried to spend more money on 3rd party developers than on 1st party developers.

I don't mean to intrude in this conversation, but isn't this the same reason why so many people dislike Microsoft? Using money to force their way into the gaming industry and gain an advantage over their competitors makes Microsoft an "evil corporation"...yet it's OK for Sony?

Seems a bit hypocritical to me.

 



lestatdark on 23 January 2009
rubido said:
lestatdark said:
OT - Yeah, i would be bothered if the PS3 was sony last console, because first they have great series that i would hate to see them dissapear, and because sony's products are always reliable and trustworthy, even if they are expensive as hell

Don't generalize Sony's products like that. Almost everything Sony makes is very reliable. But you seem to forget that the PS3 is their first reliable console. The other two had the crappiest disc drives known to man.

In my experience the only problems that i had with a sony product was a DRE on the ps2, nothing more. But to be fair, i've never had a problem with a Nintendo console or a Sega console, so i have to say that they are more reliable in the console market than sony ;)

 



Current PC Build

CPU - i7 8700K 3.7 GHz (4.7 GHz turbo) 6 cores OC'd to 5.2 GHz with Watercooling (Hydro Series H110i) | MB - Gigabyte Z370 HD3P ATX | Gigabyte GTX 1080ti Gaming OC BLACK 11G (1657 MHz Boost Core / 11010 MHz Memory) | RAM - Corsair DIMM 32GB DDR4, 2400 MHz | PSU - Corsair CX650M (80+ Bronze) 650W | Audio - Asus Essence STX II 7.1 | Monitor - Samsung U28E590D 4K UHD, Freesync, 1 ms, 60 Hz, 28"

rubido on 23 January 2009
lestatdark said:
rubido said:
lestatdark said:
OT - Yeah, i would be bothered if the PS3 was sony last console, because first they have great series that i would hate to see them dissapear, and because sony's products are always reliable and trustworthy, even if they are expensive as hell

Don't generalize Sony's products like that. Almost everything Sony makes is very reliable. But you seem to forget that the PS3 is their first reliable console. The other two had the crappiest disc drives known to man.

In my experience the only problems that i had with a sony product was a DRE on the ps2, nothing more. But to be fair, i've never had a problem with a Nintendo console or a Sega console, so i have to say that they are more reliable in the console market than sony ;)

 

All my friends had a ps2. Except for one lucky guys, all of them had problems with their disc drive. Some quite early. The rest later. All my friends that had a ps1 had horrible problems. Some would only play games if they were flipped upside down. It was insane to see that.

Then I really wanted to get a ps1 and a ps2 and never bought them because money was very short for me at the time and I couldn't waste it on something unreliable. The ps3 came out and I read a whole lot about it to finally see that it was worth buying. But by that time, the Wii had already caught my attention.

And as I said before. Their games are good and I'll play them elsewhere, but I wouldn't be bothered to see their hardware go down. The first time they get it right on the disc drive, they mess up on the features.