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

Forums - Sony Discussion - A State of the Union for the Playstation 3

S.T.A.G.E. on 22 March 2009
Gilgamesh said:

What are you talking about, there are so many things wrong with what you said. Sony is a company, they make company decisions so there able to keep making PS3's and games, if they wanted to win the console war and come out with risky games left and right just to please the consumers then they'd be out of business a long time ago.

This basically explains the PS1 and PS2 era. Videogames isn't a strong enough category to bring Sony down.

There making all the right decision so that the gaming division becomes profitable (or not as non-profitable), give it time, once there not in so much of a pickle they'll start to shine.

They neglected their 3rd party and because of Microsofts interference they got their heads out of their ass and started focusing on 1st and 2nd party titles. Instead of jumping on Microsoft you should be thanking them for forcing Sony out of their 3rd party comfort zone.

 

 



Around the Network
starcraft on 22 March 2009
MAFKKA said:

"50% of the console has shown no tangible benefit for games and many tangible drawbacks (namely price and userbase).

If you wanted to make the argument that the PS3 is a better Home Entertainment System than the Xbox 360, where how entertainment is defined as movie and music playback etc, I would probably agree with you.

But games-wise, content is king.  And frankly, the Xbox 360 comfortably has the PS3 beaten here."

But that's what im getting at. You cant just remove features to your liking until you see fit that its less of a console than any other. If you're to remove Blu Ray and than do some .. weird.. comparisson to make the other look better. Because then I can do the same and go "Well entertainment-wise, content is king. And frankly, the PS3 has the 360 beaten here."

You just cant do that. It makes no sense what so ever.

But it doesn't, a casual glance at Metacritic tells us that.  What I said was that for games, the Xbox 360 is far better value.

If you want to expand the field to include all forms of entertainment in the value question, we still run into issues.  For example, the majority of people don't own HDTV's, and would therefore view the PS3 as an overpriced console.  Then of course there are those that would prefer Netflix and a more coherant online service.

 



starcraft - Playing Games = FUN, Talking about Games = SERIOUS

MAFKKA on 22 March 2009
S.T.A.G.E. said:
MAFKKA said:

"..or that the PS3 will ever be better value as a GAMES console (Blu-Ray not withstanding) than the Xbox 360."

"But Zenfolder is discussing quantifiable fact."

First.. I love how threads with opinions always has the word FACT in them.
And secondly. I like how you removed 50% of the console with that first line.

As if I were to go "..the 360 will never be as good of a HOME ENTERTAINMENT SYSTEM (Games not withstanding) as the PS3. "

Brilliant! Just brilliant. You and Greenberg can start a PR company. Amazing!

The PS3 has Blu Ray while the 360 has Netflix. I'll take Netflix. The PS3 is only superior based on power. Substance > showboating in the entertainment genre.

 

Well thats not the point. If you prefer Netflix or not.. good for you. The point was the author and him basiclly went "PS3 is inferior to the 360, if you remove blu ray. Well.. if I told you "PS3 is better than 360 if you remove Games and Netflix", how's that even a point!?

 



City17 on 22 March 2009

The PS3 may not suck but I cannot find myself able to say the same about this thread...



MAFKKA on 22 March 2009
starcraft said:
MAFKKA said:

"50% of the console has shown no tangible benefit for games and many tangible drawbacks (namely price and userbase).

If you wanted to make the argument that the PS3 is a better Home Entertainment System than the Xbox 360, where how entertainment is defined as movie and music playback etc, I would probably agree with you.

But games-wise, content is king.  And frankly, the Xbox 360 comfortably has the PS3 beaten here."

But that's what im getting at. You cant just remove features to your liking until you see fit that its less of a console than any other. If you're to remove Blu Ray and than do some .. weird.. comparisson to make the other look better. Because then I can do the same and go "Well entertainment-wise, content is king. And frankly, the PS3 has the 360 beaten here."

You just cant do that. It makes no sense what so ever.

But it doesn't, a casual glance at Metacritic tells us that.  What I said was that for games, the Xbox 360 is far better value.

If you want to expand the field to include all forms of entertainment in the value question, we still run into issues.  For example, the majority of people don't own HDTV's, and would therefore view the PS3 as an overpriced console.  Then of course there are those that would prefer Netflix and a more coherant online service.

 

 

 Okay so I'll just go with that the PS3 is better than the 360. Case closed. Since it got blu ray and is a better option for home entertainment. And since i dont have to look at the games any more, i just dont feel like including that in the value of a console, im basicly right!? So that makes my case valid and i win!?



Around the Network
ZenfoldorVGI on 22 March 2009
MAFKKA said:

"50% of the console has shown no tangible benefit for games and many tangible drawbacks (namely price and userbase).

If you wanted to make the argument that the PS3 is a better Home Entertainment System than the Xbox 360, where how entertainment is defined as movie and music playback etc, I would probably agree with you.

But games-wise, content is king.  And frankly, the Xbox 360 comfortably has the PS3 beaten here."

 

But that's what im getting at. You cant just remove features to your liking until you see fit that its less of a console than any other. If you're to remove Blu Ray and than do some .. weird.. comparisson to make the other look better. Because then I can do the same and go "Well entertainment-wise, content is king. And frankly, the PS3 has the 360 beaten here."

You just cant do that. It makes no sense what so ever.

Ironically, without Blu-Ray, the PS3 would be a far more attractive console, and likely would be the second place console this generation.

Blu-Ray is the reason the PS3 costs so much. It's also the reason Sony has to make the console at an operating loss. It's the reason Sony has less discretionary funds for 3rd parties, and it's also the reason that the PS3 has yet to manage a competitive price point.

You are pissed because you think the PS3 is the best console ever made.

It's not. Graphics and movies don't necessarily equal the best gaming console. Otherwise, the PSP would be the best handheld ever, and the NeoGeo would be better than the SNES.

I don't give two shits about the Xbox 360, and the purpose of this thread isn't to compare the two consoles, or give my opinion about the 360 in relation to the PS3.

It is my attempt to give a realistic look at the PS3 and its current state, without it being clouded by a bunch of fanboy jibberish bullshit.

I epically succeeded.

 



I don't need your console war.
It feeds the rich while it buries the poor.
You're power hungry, spinnin' stories, and bein' graphics whores.
I don't need your console war.

NO NO, NO NO NO.

ZenfoldorVGI on 22 March 2009
City17 said:
The PS3 may not suck but I cannot find myself able to say the same about this thread...

 

The thread tells the truth, or at least my version of it. I fully expected it to piss everyone off, or at least those who would rather enjoy a pretty lie.

I could care less what you think. Post constructively or move on.



I don't need your console war.
It feeds the rich while it buries the poor.
You're power hungry, spinnin' stories, and bein' graphics whores.
I don't need your console war.

NO NO, NO NO NO.

Khuutra on 22 March 2009

Are you really going to call Sony "cheap" this gen? You do it several times, I just want to make sure you mean it.

Also, you mean "I could not care less."



S.T.A.G.E. on 22 March 2009
MAFKKA said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
MAFKKA said:

"..or that the PS3 will ever be better value as a GAMES console (Blu-Ray not withstanding) than the Xbox 360."

"But Zenfolder is discussing quantifiable fact."

First.. I love how threads with opinions always has the word FACT in them.
And secondly. I like how you removed 50% of the console with that first line.

As if I were to go "..the 360 will never be as good of a HOME ENTERTAINMENT SYSTEM (Games not withstanding) as the PS3. "

Brilliant! Just brilliant. You and Greenberg can start a PR company. Amazing!

The PS3 has Blu Ray while the 360 has Netflix. I'll take Netflix. The PS3 is only superior based on power. Substance > showboating in the entertainment genre.

 

Well thats not the point. If you prefer Netflix or not.. good for you. The point was the author and him basiclly went "PS3 is inferior to the 360, if you remove blu ray. Well.. if I told you "PS3 is better than 360 if you remove Games and Netflix", how's that even a point!?

 

If you want to make an argument based on power I could say the crappy Xbox last gen was a better entertainment system than the PS2. I already know the PS3 is more powerful than the 360. That is a weightless argument if you want to shed light on value. Neither systems are inferior; for they are a product of their different brands. What you might find to be inferior would be the gameplan of one of the two companies.

 



S.T.A.G.E. on 22 March 2009
MAFKKA said:
starcraft said:
MAFKKA said:

"50% of the console has shown no tangible benefit for games and many tangible drawbacks (namely price and userbase).

If you wanted to make the argument that the PS3 is a better Home Entertainment System than the Xbox 360, where how entertainment is defined as movie and music playback etc, I would probably agree with you.

But games-wise, content is king.  And frankly, the Xbox 360 comfortably has the PS3 beaten here."

But that's what im getting at. You cant just remove features to your liking until you see fit that its less of a console than any other. If you're to remove Blu Ray and than do some .. weird.. comparisson to make the other look better. Because then I can do the same and go "Well entertainment-wise, content is king. And frankly, the PS3 has the 360 beaten here."

You just cant do that. It makes no sense what so ever.

But it doesn't, a casual glance at Metacritic tells us that.  What I said was that for games, the Xbox 360 is far better value.

If you want to expand the field to include all forms of entertainment in the value question, we still run into issues.  For example, the majority of people don't own HDTV's, and would therefore view the PS3 as an overpriced console.  Then of course there are those that would prefer Netflix and a more coherant online service.

 

 

 Okay so I'll just go with that the PS3 is better than the 360. Case closed. Since it got blu ray and is a better option for home entertainment. And since i dont have to look at the games any more, i just dont feel like including that in the value of a console, im basicly right!? So that makes my case valid and i win!?

 

Actually the PS3 took a hard fall for Blu Ray. It ended up in last, so Blu Ray could make it into the mainstream. It's not like it will beat standard DVD though.