+1

But thats where you're off.. only looking at the gaming part and excluding everything else. If you bought the PS3 only for the gaming part you'd might as well have bought a 360 when it first came out. I mean, that is the popular choice looking strictly at the gaming side of it. And the amazing XBL would have to playing until late hours.

And as for Blu Ray.

"New data from HMR Research shows that the 9 million movies have been sold on Blu-ray since inception of the format in the United States, with 3 million of those having been sold during the first 11 weeks of this year. If this trend continues, Blu-ray is poised to sell nearly 15 million units in this year ('08) alone."

and; http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2009-blu-ray-sales-to-exceed-100-million-discs


So i'd say blu ray is doing just fine.

lol... why do you people care? get over it quit trolling and stop putting words in peoples mouths. this will be the last time i enter the sorry excuse for a thread and some of these comments are laughable i regret wasting my time reading them

No, I never mean cheap in the way you infer.

Sony are choosing profits this gen because they must. They are in financial trouble, for several reasons.

However, the reason Sony is unable to drop the price, unable to give us the 3rd party brand exclusives, the DLC, and the jrpgs we want is simple enough.

They wanted to push Blu-Ray, because they thought, years ago, that saddling Playstation with the BR brand would make BR catch on as the mainstream format, and then, they would make shitloads of money off of it. They didn't care if the Playstation brand faltered in the painful adoption process, because the inevitable returns from owning the next big format would dwarf their gaming division.

So, at gamers expense, Blu-Ray was pushed.

It wasn't as successful as fast as Sony had hoped, and the company has suffered.

Sony gives the consumers what they want in some cases, because they have to. However, they aren't giving us all they could because of the bullshit Blu-Ray decision that YOU should be pissed about. Sony doesn't give us content because they can't afford it, not because they are cheap.

Also, another thing Sony has done, is make Killzone 2, at a very high cost to themselves, in an attempt to appeal to the Western, graphics based, shooter loving audience. This is strictly a business decision, and also an opinion, but I'd have rather had Dragoon 2, and a few 3rd party jrpgs remain exclusive, were I running the company, or were I a Playstation fanboy, but maybe that's just me.

As far as the other, you have to be desperate to start flaming me for my grammar. I wrote a fucking book in the OP and that was the best you got? Anyway, flaming grammar is the lowest form of flaming, and should only be resorted to when you have nothing else to flame, like content. I didn't flame Sony because their press releases were worded poorly...in fact I didn't flame Sony at all, I just outlined their business strategy.

No company has ever decided to be generous in their expenditure by choosing the razor blade model of console sales. I don't know what to tell you.

I don't think "cheap" is the word you meant to use here.

And yes, if you wanted to rope in a few third party JRPGs instead of making games that sell much better, you would be making very poor financial decisions.

Edit: Pointing out a common mistake is flaming now?

Meaningful discussions are often painful, full of misunderstanding, and they certainly aren't always fun. This thread pisses people off, but it needed saying, and some of that shit needs to be accepted for this forum to move forward. This is the first step.

Why WOULD we be pissed at blu ray? I dont get it. Why would we settle for anything less than modern standards? What is it that's sooo bad about your playstation? What games is it that you really feel you're missing out on? And why the hell arent you getting yourself another console that supports these games you're lacking? I just dont get you. What is the true issue here? Are you scared that Sony will be no more?

My turn:

"1. The console still has very poor Jrpg support by any standard. This is a travesty we can place directly on Sony's head."

Microsoft was willing to pay, Sony wasn't. The end result is the 360 being the only console with lots of JRPG's, and the console has benefited very little from it. I know it is hard for the fans to face, but the genre isn't attracting that many customers, and it would have been irresponsible for Sony to blow money on something like that in their financial situation.


2. "Sony has decided to no longer support 3rd party exclusive games, instead concentrating on its first and second party party, admittedly western-centric titles, at cost to Sony fans, with profits as a motive. This is in stark contrast to the gamer-centric strategy of Sony's main competition. The Lost and the Damned, for instance, is a AAA loss likely due directly to Sony's cheapness."

That's one way of viewing it. However, it could be easily said that Sony has the ability to create great and expensive games like Killzone 2, Uncharted, Gran Turismo 5, etc. because that is where all their resources are going. Didn't Microsoft just close another studio? That's where Sony could be right now if they invested in third parties. First party support is also better for long-term, because they create specific engines that can be reused and it gives the development team experience that can be put to use in the next title. As we know now for the 360, many of it's exclusives (Bioshock, Dead Rising, Lost Planet, Ninja Gaiden, etc.) are now going onto the PS3, without any future benefit to Microsoft.


3. "The PS3 is still on pace to easily end up in 3rd place this gen, and in fact, it is almost impossible mathematically to come up with any scenerio which would keep the PS3 out of dead last. The PS3 lost this generation. The gamecube also, didn't suck."

True. Is there a point though? It's already getting most of the former 360 exclusive franchises, I don't think it needs to finish ahead of 360 anymore, except for bragging rights.


4. "Even if it didn't lose this generation, which it did, the console still went from the most epic of wins, the PS2, to a degredation of its namesake, the near ruination of the Playstation brand, and all of this is attributed directly to Sony's attempt to push early adoption of Blu-Ray at the expense of its gaming fanbase."

True again. I don't see why anybody should hold this against the PS3 personally though.


5. "The console is still significantly behind in game library according to the quantifiable methods of determination, aggregate reviews and/or overall game sales. This is an admittedly weak point, but still, it's the only quantifiable methods we have to determine such things as game library quality and more importantly, game library popularity."

True, but it is starting offer such a great and unique library of it's own games. And, as I have pointed out many times before, the franchises that made the 360 so great early on are headed to the PS3. Basically, to some people it will never be as good as the 360's lineup, but it will boast it's own lineup that will be hard for a gamer to completely ignore, which it argruably already has.


6."HOME has been underwhelming, and XBL is still the superior online service by most accounts, despite huge steps Sony has taken to make the services equal."

Can't argue with that, but PSN isn't costing me anything.


7."Sony actually and purposefully removed Backwards Compatibility, in what we can only assume was an attempt to sell more Playstation 2s. This is an insult to all consumers, and equivelant to a price hike."

You can't honestly think that was the only reason? It was clearly a desperate move to lower the production cost, with them knowing it would help the PS2 remain attractive to consumers.

well, the PlayStation 3 is doing well if you think about it. Its done what took Nintendo to do with GameCube in 5 years all in a 2 year span, 21 Million Units. I think they still have a chance to be number two, BUT you're points are dead on, some systems don't suck, but don't win either, i.e. Gamecube.

I dunno about poor business decisions. I'm not certain how profitable KZ2 will become, and if Sony coulda spent the money on keeping FFXIII, GTA, or some other big games as timed exclusives(and more importantly, related to their brand name), then maybe it would have been well spent in another area, but we're talking about a completely different subject now. Feel free to replace "cheapness" with "ineptitude," but again, picking small holes in my very valid and long OP might be easy, but it's not necessary. Overall, my points are strong. I might have used "cheapness" because Sony simply appears to be acting in a very cheap manner. Unfortunately, they must act this way, for reasons I've discussed. However, I wonder why the common gamer should even give a shit about Sony's reasons for giving them less content then they have previously. Reasons, however valid, are in this case a form of damage control. The only thing that should matter to any of us is the end result, no?

...and yes, publically pointing out flaws in other's grammatical errors, spelling, or wordage instead of addressing the content of their message is always a passive-agressive act that is a form of trolling. You will not get very far with me under bullshit guises my friend. I have used such methods in the past to belittle my opponents and it has always been and ignorant and shameful act.