Sony's gone all kinds of arrogant/crazy. What can only be best described as a tirade of law suites and slander attacks has left many former Sony fans (including myself) highly questioning their motives and ethics.

Sony first managed to shut down what can easily be described as "money into their own pockets" , by indirectly causing an import site known as Lik Sang to close after several hard hitting law suites.

Then, as if to make everything better, Sony points the finger at Lik Sang, yelling "sour grapes" , who are we to believe?

My question is, what is your opinion of Sony's recent actions compared to their business ethics in the past?

Personally, I think Sony is losing steam, and wants to sink people with them. They boxed themselves in with the UMD media, and if Blu-Ray fails, as does the PS3. Factor in their antics against people selling their media and their apparent misconception on "facts"... yeah, I think I'll pass on them.

But what's your opinion?

Is Sony worth 600 dollars?

Not to mention how many times Sony shoots itself in the foot releasing another fireware for the PSP which disables much homebrew.


Reading through the many responses on the Lik-Sang site, I have noticed. There are a lot of stupid people on the internet.

Terminal
Not to mention how many times Sony shoots itself in the foot releasing another fireware for the PSP which disables much homebrew.

Meh, I don't know much about that (PSP's been collecting dust).

What gets me is that they withheld the PSP from the UK market for 7 months, and then got shitty at Lik Sang for selling the UK market the product THEY WANTED. Sony is basically saying "you'll get it from us and you'll like it". Now this may not directly affect me (I'm from the US, for those who don't know), but it's still causing me to lose faith in the company. Supply and demand. Apparently they like hearing the demand more then they do getting paid...


And yes, Myxo... I try to avoid reading the comments for that very reason ;). Unlike most of them, I'm not crying over the lose of the site (can't say I used it), but it's rather ugly to hear, considering the faith I used to have in Sony. I've been buying their products less and less, and while this may not be the final nail in the coffin for me, I can say it's getting there.

Sony is out to make a few final cash grabs before thier gaming department goes bankrupt. You can all say what you want about how great the PS3's graphics are, and how awesome MGS4 will be (Very awesome I bet), but that doesn't change the fact that the PS3 will utterly kill their gaming division.

First off, look at the exclusive games coming out for PS3. You got MGS4 and FFXIII. Those are the only console exclusive games that look good. The rest look either derivative (Heavenly Sword) or outright stupid (Genji 2: Attack of the Giant Enemy Crabs).

Compare that to the exclusives 360 has coming out. They got the new Halo (Hopefully will redeem them for Halo 2), Dead Rising, Saint's Row, Dead or Alive 4 (Admit it, the DOA games are fun), and most importantly, Gears of War.

I think it's quite obvious who wins on the games.

And then the pricing. While I will admit that the $499 PS3 is practically the same thing as the $599 PS3 (Only difference is less HD space), I doubt anyone actually wants to pay $100 more for a system that has only a handful of promising games coming out on it. And we aren't even sure how much these games are going to cost either. Some predictions place them at well over the $59 mark that 360 games cost. And that's no good!

The 360 on the other hand, will probably be getting a price reduction not long after the PS3 comes out. That will gimp PS3's already limited market by making a system of equal power (360 and PS3 are very close graphically) affordable to many more people. And when you throw in that the 360 has Xbox Live and a huge list of great games already released or coming out soon, PS3 doesn't look so appealing anymore.

It doesn't help that Sony is banking everything on those Blu-ray drives. They have already proven to be uncostly to make, unreliable, and easily defective. The HD-DVD is already available for much cheaper, and can still hold a very respectable amount of disc space (Up to 90 gig).

Granted, the 360 will only run DVD based games, but a DVD is no slouch either when it comes to disc space. How many games are really going to need more than 8 gig? Oblivion even fit on one dvd and it is probably the biggest game released yet on next gen consoles.

Much of the format war may even be decided by the movie industry. Depending on what format they choose, the Blu-ray may come out on top and give Sony the edge it needs to keep the PS3 floating. The problem with this? The movie industry is cheap as fuck. They will take the HD-DVD because it is cheaper to produce and will give the same results.

And to top it off, the PS3 will ship at LESS than a half a million units in 2006. Yes, less than half a million! Meaning that the 360 will get an even greater grip on the market this christmas, while the PS3 is stuck in a rut until sometime in 2007.

And let's not forget the Wii. Microsoft executives have already thrown out their endorsement for the Wii by telling people it should be the second system they should buy. It's true. And the Wii will be dirt cheap as well. And Metroid Prime 3. You know you want MP3.

My prediction?

The 360 will come out on top this time, Wii in second, and PS3 in dead last.
What Sony is doing can only be described as suicide. Overpriced and undersupported platforms never win. Isn't that right 3DO?

B-b-but Rich, Sony's smug-assery sounded so assuring... I quote

Someone
"Through our comparison chart we are not implying that you must purchase the myriad of peripherals and add-ons that Microsoft offers to play your Xbox 360. You don't. However, if you want to attempt to come close to the performance of the $499 PlayStation 3 by using your Xbox 360, Core or Premium, you could only do that through expensive add-ons -- that is what our chart is demonstrating. Once you add it all up, it would cost you more than our $499 unit, and you would still not come close to everything we offer, ie: free multiplayer gaming, 50GB storage capacity of Blu-ray disc, Blu-ray disc player for games, RIDGE RAAAAACER, AND movies, processing power of the Cell Broadband Engine."

I assume you guys can find my edit.

But your more or less right. Sony has had a recent habit of putting their eggs in one basket. Note the whole UMD deal. Just like that, if the media flakes, the system WILL follow. So being the smart guys that they are, they decided to sign on Blu-Ray in their little PS3 venture. Sony is too arrogant this time around... They took the losing side in a media war between Blu-Ray and HDDVD. Face it, Blu-Ray is just too expensive to produce, HD will take the market. And when/if that happens, 360 will come out on top.

Besides that, the price is just down right insane. My limit is 400 for a system. Hell, I'm wary on the price of 360 games as it is (60 bucks!?).

This next generation is really on unstable grounds, on all ends. But if I had to place my money on someone, it would be the 360 (wii comes pretty close, I'll probably buy the bugger). Funny too, as I hated the Xbox with a passion when it first came out, yet now that they've proven their worth, and thanks to Sony's self destructive behavior...

I still haven't seen anything about the 360 that has me excited enough about it to consider purchasing. Admittedly I'm a bit of a Final Fantasy fan, so that aspect of the PS3 has my interest, but I'm not even all that interested in XII, which I could easily purchase.

Anyway, after the utter and downright embarassing failure of the UMD, I'm sure Sony's biting their nails about this whole Blue Ray thing. I mean, let's be honest, it was too far along in the PS3's production to suddenly remove the Blue Ray compatibility by the time it was clear that UMDs had crashed and burned, so really they have no choice but to bank on the damn thing. The problem with Blue Ray is that, it seems better, but not better enough to justify its existance. The DVD had HUGE advantages over video tapes, so it's easy to understand how one could replace the other, but Blue Ray's advantages are minimal at best. If they can already fit a whole movie and 2+ hours of extras on one DVD, how much more do they need? Unless you're going to put a whole trilogy on one disc (which isn't really worth the effort) there's no need for much more memory capacity.

Actually movies in HD do look a lot clearer. So the extra disc space is good, but it will fit just fine on an HD-DVD, which is cheap to make and reliable.

I was sad to hear about Lik-Sang. :( I can still get Phoenix Wright from PlayAsia though so I'm not too sad.

Actually I should order that today. Hmm.

Also I'm pretty pissed of at Sony for making a really fantastic portable gaming console (the PSP) and having no good games for it. The only 2 games I've really liked are LocoRoco and Katamari. Some others were okay but most I've only played perhaps 15-20% of the game (GTA liberty city, death jr, mercury, lumines). After getting tired of having a game system that didn't play anything I wanted I gave in and also got a DS, now I am having a blast. :)

... i'll wait for a couple of years after the PS3 comes out, then it'll be less cash for one (what's wrong with doing that? i did that with my PS2)

skoolmunkee
Also I'm pretty pissed of at Sony for making a really fantastic portable gaming console (the PSP) and having no good games for it.

Amen. I have only two games on my PSP (Metal Gear Acid and Medievil: Ressurection) and... well... the MGA disc is so messed up that it won't play. And Medievil was pretty good, but after I beat it, there was really nothing left to do. I keep reminding myself to get a PSP game that's actually enjoyable, but the only one that I'm interested in Valkerie Profile: Lenneth.

Sony has been making the worst decisions lately. I'm just gonna get a Wii and see how PS3 and 360 all look after that. (hm, all the next gen consoles have pronunciations ending with "ee"... strange)

There is only ONE reason I want to get the PS3, and I'm praying that Capcom will release it on another console.

Devil May Cry 4.


I loveloveLOVE the DMC games. I've got 1-3, and DMC3:SE =D The characters, plotlines, and gameplay are fantastic... and from what I've seen of the trailers for #4, I want it. BADLY. The graphics during actual gameplay were utterly fantastic (the demons you fought broke up into water, and it actually looked like water), a new character's being introduced... and dammit, I'm hoping you fight Dante as a boss. Because that would be cool beyond belief.


I just don't want to pay $500 for the system. I wouldn't mind either forking over $70 to buy it, buying it secondhand after a while, or even just RENTING the game, but if I have to fork over that kind of money for a PS3 and Capcom doesn't release DMC4 on any other console.... I'll be very very sad. And will probably find some way to borrow the console from someone who has it just so I can play that one damn game.

As it is, I'm leaning towards the Wii. As one of my friends pointed out, it seems to be the only true next-gen of the supposed next-gen consoles, and is very affordable to boot.

Rimbaum
The characters, plotlines, and gameplay are fantastic...

I hope you're only talking about DMC3's story. DMC1 had a mediocre story, and DMC2 was utter garbage on all levels.

Someone
As it is, I'm leaning towards the Wii. As one of my friends pointed out, it seems to be the only true next-gen of the supposed next-gen consoles, and is very affordable to boot.

Technically that is right. The Xbox 360 has good graphics, but does not innovate at all. The PS3 may have their tilt sensor, but since the system is destined to flop cause noone can afford it, I doubt it matters.

The Wii will be affordable, and should focus on gameplay over graphics. And that's what games are about anyways. Gameplay. Not story, not graphics.

The DVD had HUGE advantages over video tapes, so it's easy to understand how one could replace the other, but Blue Ray's advantages are minimal at best. If they can already fit a whole movie and 2+ hours of extras on one DVD, how much more do they need? Unless you're going to put a whole trilogy on one disc (which isn't really worth the effort) there's no need for much more memory capacity.

HD video and the new audio formats that go along with it take up a lot more space than the standard video offered on modern DVDs. If DVD-9's are maxing out at four hours of video, then they certainly won't offer enough for a two hour movie in HD. You're talking a video format with approximately 230,400 pixels per frame vs. a format with 2,073,600. New video formats have dropped the file sizes on the video, but still, you can see where the extra space would be needed.

Actually movies in HD do look a lot clearer. So the extra disc space is good, but it will fit just fine on an HD-DVD, which is cheap to make and reliable.

Both are pretty cheap to produce and the yield ratios on Blu-Ray are rapidly catching up to the HD-DVD ratios. What's really going to determine this format war is the advertising. At the moment, Blu-Ray has the upper hand in that department. Hopefully some of the studios supporting the format will wise up and start using the same video format as HD-DVD. That's the only thing really holding back Blu-Ray at the moment.

Besides that, the price is just down right insane. My limit is 400 for a system. Hell, I'm wary on the price of 360 games as it is (60 bucks!?).

If $400 is your limit, why did you buy a 360? The $400 system is only worth it if you pay for features beyond what's in the box. No point in getting a hard drive for the system if you don't pay for live as well. The wireless controller gets pretty costly if you don't get the charge and play kit, too. If you think any system this generation is going to be cheap, you're fooling yourself. What Nintendo and Microsoft save you in the initial system costs, they make up in other ways. Expensive controllers, charging for online service, micropayments for every classic game you want to play on the Wii. It all adds up. Not to mention that both Nintendo and Microsoft dropped features on their systems prior to release, while Sony has actually been responding positively to consumer demand.

I doubt Sony is going anywhere this generation. They have pretty deep pockets. An initial loss that keeps them ahead of the competition is something they're very capable of dealing with. Plus, at the moment, they are in the best position of any of the three companies, even with a higher price tag. They have pretty strong support in both of the major games producing markets with heavy hitters in both. Microsoft may have a good lead in the American market, but in the end, the libraries are going to determine which system comes out on top.

Compare that to the exclusives 360 has coming out. They got the new Halo (Hopefully will redeem them for Halo 2), Dead Rising, Saint's Row, Dead or Alive 4 (Admit it, the DOA games are fun), and most importantly, Gears of War.

Wow, you claim the PS3 has derivative games and then list "gems" like Dead or Alive 4 and Saint's Row. The 360 exclusives are definitely as derivitive as they come. While Dead Rising tried to take advantage of the graphical power of the 360, it didn't make up for the incredibly disappointing gameplay.

Even Microsoft's attempts to bring more RPGs into the mix have been pretty pathetic. I was excited about games like Blue Dragon until I found out they had the same "tried and true" gameplay as just about every other turn based RPG released in the last fifteen years. At least games like Shirokishi Monogatari are trying to bring the genre into the next generation. So far, I'm more interested in it than FFXIII.

isukun

The DVD had HUGE advantages over video tapes, so it's easy to understand how one could replace the other, but Blue Ray's advantages are minimal at best. If they can already fit a whole movie and 2+ hours of extras on one DVD, how much more do they need? Unless you're going to put a whole trilogy on one disc (which isn't really worth the effort) there's no need for much more memory capacity.

HD video and the new audio formats that go along with it take up a lot more space than the standard video offered on modern DVDs. If DVD-9's are maxing out at four hours of video, then they certainly won't offer enough for a two hour movie in HD. You're talking a video format with approximately 230,400 pixels per frame vs. a format with 2,073,600. New video formats have dropped the file sizes on the video, but still, you can see where the extra space would be needed.

I think you're missing the point. I don't care that newer technology is needed to hold "HD Quality" movies. My point is that it's not that big of a step. It's not a faster, more secure system that changes the viewing experience. It's just the same thing only shinier. The big advantage of a DVD was scene selection and the fact that it's a lot less likely to get "eaten" by the player. It had huuuge advantages over videos on MANY LEVELS. HD beats out classic DVD on the grounds that it produces the exact same thing, only shinier. And I don't know about you, but to me that's not enough to justify getting a new player, rebuying old movies, etc. It was worth it the first time around; at this point it's just masturbation.

isukun
If $400 is your limit, why did you buy a 360? The $400 system is only worth it if you pay for features beyond what's in the box. No point in getting a hard drive for the system if you don't pay for live as well.

Actually, the hard-drive apparently speeds up loading on some games and removes the need for a memory card. And besides, who DOESNT want Xbox Live? It blows every other online console gaming service out of the water and will most likely continue to do so.

Someone
The wireless controller gets pretty costly if you don't get the charge and play kit, too.

Nobody should trust wireless controllers anyways. I can't help but feel things like that could easily fuck up the gameplay if your battery runs low.

Someone
If you think any system this generation is going to be cheap, you're fooling yourself. What Nintendo and Microsoft save you in the initial system costs, they make up in other ways.

I'll admit that the Wii control is a little bit pricey, but I don't do splitscreen multiplayer anyways, so it doesn't matter to me. Same with the 360. And once you get past the cost of extra controls, what more is there? I know, Xbox live, 'cuz it r lame to pay for ur onlin gaeming', right? That's all I see. More controls, and maybe an Xbox live subscription.

Someone
Expensive controllers, charging for online service, micropayments for every classic game you want to play on the Wii. It all adds up.

Do you know how much the PS3 controls are going to cost? For all we know, they may very well outprice the 360 control or even the Wiimote.

And the online service on Xbox is WORTH the money. It isn't that much when you really think about it.

And the micropayments to buy classic games, what did you really expect? Did you REALLY think they were going to release them for free? And if you're gonna bitch about $8 for a classic SNES game, then why the hell are you defending the $600 PS3 and it's $59 games?

Someone
Not to mention that both Nintendo and Microsoft dropped features on their systems prior to release, while Sony has actually been responding positively to consumer demand.

Sony's track record isn't real good either. Need I remind you of the PSX flop they had? You know, the PS2 with a bunch of fancy features that were all cut about a month or so before the release?

And if Sony is responding to demands, why the fuck are they still charging $599 dollars for the PS3?

Someone
I doubt Sony is going anywhere this generation. They have pretty deep pockets. An initial loss that keeps them ahead of the competition is something they're very capable of dealing with. Plus, at the moment, they are in the best position of any of the three companies, even with a higher price tag. They have pretty strong support in both of the major games producing markets with heavy hitters in both. Microsoft may have a good lead in the American market, but in the end, the libraries are going to determine which system comes out on top.

I will agree that Sony may not go anywhere, but that doesn't mean they will do very good. Their currently lackluster list of games, and high price tag will damage them. And did you suddenly forget about the only half a million systems in the US during 2006? That's a real good way to get a grip on the market, by not having the systems to sell the people.

Someone
Wow, you claim the PS3 has derivative games and then list "gems" like Dead or Alive 4 and Saint's Row. The 360 exclusives are definitely as derivitive as they come. While Dead Rising tried to take advantage of the graphical power of the 360, it didn't make up for the incredibly disappointing gameplay.

I like DOA. It's more accessible than most fighters, which force you to memorize a million 'dial-a-combo' things. And certainly I haven't seen any better exclusives on PS3 (Save for MGS4 and Ninja Gaiden Sigma).

Someone
Even Microsoft's attempts to bring more RPGs into the mix have been pretty pathetic. I was excited about games like Blue Dragon until I found out they had the same "tried and true" gameplay as just about every other turn based RPG released in the last fifteen years. At least games like Shirokishi Monogatari are trying to bring the genre into the next generation. So far, I'm more interested in it than FFXIII.

Console RPGs are usually crap anyways. You'll find a few gems like Dragon Warrior or the Tales series, but most console RPGs usually suck. If you NEED RPGs, just upgrade your computer and play some American RPGs. Ya know, the type with gameplay, where there is a such thing as 'replay value'. And you DONT spend the whole game watching the characters angst of stupid shit (COUGHFINALFANTASYCOUGH).

Someone
If $400 is your limit, why did you buy a 360? The $400 system is only worth it if you pay for features beyond what's in the box.

You've got me all wrong. I said I would only pay 400 for the SYSTEM. I can afford all the extra crap later on. That's why it's "extra". Right now, I'm worried about playing some games I've had my eyes on, not going online, etc. But I do intend to later. And as such, I'm getting the Xbox Platinum system, which saves me 300 dollars latter one for when I do intend to go online and watch movies ;). Never said I was going to just buy everything at once.


And since I've yet to buy the system, I can still change my mind. I'm still debating on weather the 400 dollar system is really worth it. Come the 14th, I'll have it, so I have all the time in the world until then to figure things out.

Wikipedia
Individual SIXAXIS controllers will also be available at launch in the United States for US$49.99.

Well, it looks like those PS3 controllers are expensive too. Can't use that in an argument now. And worst of all, Sony cut the rumble feature out of the control.

The Wiimote can handle even more complex movement, and STILL have rumble. Why cant the SIXAXIS?

Rich

Wikipedia
Individual SIXAXIS controllers will also be available at launch in the United States for US$49.99.

Well, it looks like those PS3 controllers are expensive too. Can't use that in an argument now. And worst of all, Sony cut the rumble feature out of the control.

The Wiimote can handle even more complex movement, and STILL have rumble. Why cant the SIXAXIS?

Gamepro did an article about this...

Someone
Vic Viegas, the CEO of Immersion Corp., has taken another public shot at Sony, saying that the company could easily and cheaply add rumble support to its PS3 controller.

Responding to Sony's recent statements that adding rumbling support to the motion-sensing PS3 controller would be too expensive, the CEO of force-feedback company Immersion Corp. told Next-Gen.biz that the company knows of inexpensive ways to add rumble support.

Is adding rumbling support to the PS3 controller more expensive? "I just don't believe it is," Viegas said. According to Viegas, his company "knows of ways to combine these two technologies without incremental increase to the cost," adding that Immersion has helped another company do just that.

By adding rumble support to the PS3 controller, Sony would do consumers "a huge disservice by coming up with a controller that is not very affordable," Hirai said recently.

" will feel it in their pocketbook" if they don't add the missing rumble support, Viegas concluded.

Viega's company, Immersion, is currently locked in a bitter legal struggle with Sony concerning the company's use of force-feedback technology in its PlayStation and PS2 controllers.

To me it seems like right now, Sony is similar to what Nintendo was ten years ago... the arrogant king of the videogame world throwing its weight around. Soon, Nintendo released the N64 and a newcomer put them in their place. Could Sony be approaching that same problem? I wouldn't rule it out.

isukun
I doubt Sony is going anywhere this generation. They have pretty deep pockets. An initial loss that keeps them ahead of the competition is something they're very capable of dealing with.

Sony does have an entire electronics company to back it up. Gaming's just one of their features. However, Sony electronics is not doing very well right now. They've posted enormous losses lately. That's to be expected when you're launching a new system with all its research and development and it hasn't been launched yet to recoup those losses... but the thing is, Sony's lost a lot of mony in their non-gaming sector as well.

They're really banking on Blu-ray and the problem they're running into right now just happens to be Blu-ray diode production. That doesn't just cripple their PS3 production, but the movie players they're using to try to establish a new media format.

I think Sony's in a tricky situation. If the PS3 is a repeat of the PSP, it could turn the tides on who becomes the next #1 console.

PS3 will fail, plain and simple. The PSP had every chance possible to unseat Nintendo's DS as the leader of the handheld market, and they failed because the system cost too much and the games were already done on other systems. PS3 will be no different. Sony has been lying about that system for a year and a half now! Anyone remember the stunt with the Killzone video 2 e3's ago? Or how about where they said the system supported 7 controllers?

The only game that had me semi-interested in PS3 was Assassin's Creed, which is now coming to 360. PS3's sunk.

Hawk
To me it seems like right now, Sony is similar to what Nintendo was ten years ago... the arrogant king of the videogame world throwing its weight around. Soon, Nintendo released the N64 and a newcomer put them in their place. Could Sony be approaching that same problem? I wouldn't rule it out.

I think that's just about the best analogy for the situation one could find.

Anyway, while I've thought at times that the PS3 is a guaranteed failure (primarily based on how poorly a very well-made system like the PSP has performed), I don't really think that's the case. Sony still has a lot of loyals in the gaming market, and with system-sellers like Final Fantasy and Metal Gear on their side they've still got a lot of weight. Hell, I'm only getting a Wii so I can be certain to be able to play Smash Bros. Brawl when it comes out (otherwise I would have just stuck with my 'cube until one of the systems released a game I needed). There are a lot of people out there who will, essentially, pay $560 just to play Final Fantasy XIII (sure, they also realize that the system can be used for other games, but that's the game they really need to play).

Based on what I've seen so far, the only "flaw" I'm going to call on the system is the price tag. That's a huge part of what's killing the PSP, and the less Sony can deliver on the games the more likely they are to repeat that problem.

And besides, who DOESNT want Xbox Live? It blows every other online console gaming service out of the water and will most likely continue to do so.

I don't. Xbox Live is a waste of money. I don't care if their service is better then existing services (you can't judge services that don't exist), it's the principle of triple paying for your games. You pay for the service, you pay for the games, and then you pay to play them online, too. And then, on top of that, you pay for downloadable content and in some cases an additional fee for online gaming. What you're essentially paying for with Xbox Live is the right to play games online. No other company charges you for that.

Nobody should trust wireless controllers anyways. I can't help but feel things like that could easily fuck up the gameplay if your battery runs low.

The $400 system only comes with a wireless controller. If you want more than two controllers for your system, and some of us do in fact have enough friends to make that worthwhile, you have no choice but to buy wireless controllers. The system only has two ports for wired controllers.

More controls, and maybe an Xbox live subscription.

A subscription that will run you $250 over the lifespan of the system. The controllers run you an additional $20 over the PS3 prices. Plus you still need to buy either the plug and charge kit or an additional wired controller when you buy the system. The $400 system doesn't give you either, so out of the box you've got a minimum of $20 additional to pay. That's how Microsoft plays the game, though.

For all we know, they may very well outprice the 360 control or even the Wiimote.

As you say yourself, $50 for a controller. $20 less than getting the 360 controller with the charge and play kit (unless you like burning through disposable batteries) and $10 less than getting both parts of the Wii controller (currently required for most games on the system, but that's how Nintendo plays the game).

And if you're gonna bitch about $8 for a classic SNES game, then why the hell are you defending the $600 PS3 and it's $59 games?

I'm not particuarly happy about gams being marked up, but I can understand it to some degree. As production costs go up, so do game prices. We've been lucky they stayed at $50 as long as they did. Although I question whether the timing was really right for it. I noticed many PC games are still at $50 and below. Sure there are licensing fees for console games, but something just doesn't seem right about buying a 360 game when I can get a superior version on the PC for less.

As for the classic games, Nintendo has sold and resold these games to us over the years. I don't expect them for free, but $8 per SNES game is highway robbery. It would make more sense to charge for access to a library at this point.

Need I remind you of the PSX flop they had? You know, the PS2 with a bunch of fancy features that were all cut about a month or so before the release?

Hardly representative of their track record when it comes to consoles. The system was never meant to be a console system, it just had the console parts built in so you could play PS2 games. Need I remind you that Nintendo did the exact same thing with the Gamecube so they could release a gamecube that had the same features as the competing hardware with a higher price tag. That didn't go over all that well, either.

And if Sony is responding to demands, why the fuck are they still charging $599 dollars for the PS3?

Yes, because companies should GIVE their products away based on consumer demand. That would work out incredibly well. What I'm talking about is things like adding the HDMI port to the basic system to quell concerns about the upgradability of the system or adding hardware backwards compatibility to avoid the problems Microsoft has had with the 360.

And did you suddenly forget about the only half a million systems in the US during 2006?

400,000 units AT LAUNCH. 500,000 between the two territories with 2,000,000 units shipped by the end of 2006. You might want to check your numbers again.

It's more accessible than most fighters, which force you to memorize a million 'dial-a-combo' things.

It isn't a matter of it being accessible, it's a matter of the fact that the game hasn't changed. I could get the exact same experience playing Dead of Alive 2 on th edreamcast as I do playing the most recent version for the 360. There is a reason the games don't sell in Japan. People who buy it here don't buy it for the gameplay.

And certainly I haven't seen any better exclusives on PS3 (Save for MGS4 and Ninja Gaiden Sigma).

That is your opinion and I can guarantee you there are a lot of people out there who don't agree with you. There are a lot of people out there who would say that the 360 line up has been mediocre and full of duds since its launch and there isn't much sign of that turning around.

Console RPGs are usually crap anyways. You'll find a few gems like Dragon Warrior or the Tales series, but most console RPGs usually suck. If you NEED RPGs, just upgrade your computer and play some American RPGs. Ya know, the type with gameplay, where there is a such thing as 'replay value'.

Replay value at the cost of entertainment. Most American RPGs are boring and repetitive, like playing through an MMO by yourself. I prefer games with personality and some art direction, not to mention a decent storyline. What I hate most about american RPGs is wandering through repetitive, drab environments fighting the same monsters over and over with a character who has no personality to play through a storyline I don't care about. There is nothing to keep your interest in the game.

Sony does have an entire electronics company to back it up.

Actually, Sony has a fairly sizeable financial company to back it up. They earn more than their media holdings and well more than enough to cover their losses in the electronics department. Sony has been through all this before. They take risks in the electronics department all the time and they have learned from past mistakes and found ways to fund these projects and protect the company if they fail.

isukun
I prefer games with personality and some art direction, not to mention a decent storyline.

Clearly you've never played Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, any of the Elder Scrolls series, or Fallout.

isukun
It isn't a matter of it being accessible, it's a matter of the fact that the game hasn't changed. I could get the exact same experience playing Dead of Alive 2 on th edreamcast as I do playing the most recent version for the 360. There is a reason the games don't sell in Japan. People who buy it here don't buy it for the gameplay.

I like DOA for the gameplay; the graphics are secondary. I found the controls to be more intuitive and fun to use than those of Tekken or Soul Calibur, and it doesn't rely so heavily on arbitrary button combinations as 2-D fighters. The characters are generally interesting, though of course there isn't much focus on story. It has cool unlockables and a good variety of characters. Y'know, it's entirely possible the core gameplay hasn't changed from DOA2 because there was nothing wrong with it at the time.

Buuuuut, I know about your odd need to arbitrarily hate things, so I won't hold it against you if you don't believe me.

Clearly you've never played Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, any of the Elder Scrolls series, or Fallout.

Actually, I've played all of them, and my statement still stands, particularly with Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights and the Elder Scrolls. Fallout at least had some decent writing.

Y'know, it's entirely possible the core gameplay hasn't changed from DOA2 because there was nothing wrong with it at the time.

Or it could be possible that Tecmo just doesn't care because they know the games will sell reguardless. I think the "she kicks high" commercial clearly states what people buy the games for, not to mention the fan service laden spinoff and upcoming movie. They know the fans of fighting games won't buy it so they focus on graphics and sex appeal.

I'm not going to fault them for taking advantage of a good marketing strategy. I myself have used sex appeal in advertising, even though fan service is a pretty small part of it.

Okay, so what did DOA do to get up your craw? Are you just not very good at it? I know I thought I hated Soul Calibur until I started playing on an easier difficulty to get the hang of it. I can't argue its technical specs against other 3D fighters, but I can say that I, personally, find it more fun to play than all the others that come to mind. Close tie with Soul Calibur, though.

Buuuut, I guess I must be hypnotized by those darned digiboobs, so my opinion must be horrendously flawed. Lord knows if it contains breasticles people are going to go nuts for it, no matter how bad it is! Just look at BMX XXX

...

Wait...

The gameplay quality of DOA, just like that of other fighting games, Baldur's Gate, or a Japanese RPG, is quite subject to taste. I could go on an on about how I hate what Final Fantasy has become, but it still just ends up being my opinion, and there are more than enough people who would argue against it.

I ended up with DOA2 in a boxed set of Dreamcast fighting games I got off eBay. It didn't come with instructions so I looked it up on GameFAQs to try to figure it out. In the end I was just hammering buttons until I won. I know there's likely a deeper and more strategic method to winning the game, but I just didn't feel like figuring it out. If it was anything like Soul Calibur 2, I'd spend all this time learning moves and staregies, and an inexperienced button-masher could still take me on and win. I didn't like DOA2, but I won't dismiss the idea of other people really liking the game. They did a lot of things well, even if I didn't like the gameplay system.

It's hard to fault Isukun for correlating T&A with what seems like a shallow fighting system... TV and Movies have been using sex to cover shortcomings for years. The real question is, if they took out those bouncing boobs and the girls were wearing completely modest outfits, would you still love the game? Inkmoney, if you can answer yes to that then more power to you.

Hawk
It's hard to fault Isukun for correlating T&A with what seems like a shallow fighting system... TV and Movies have been using sex to cover shortcomings for years. The real question is, if they took out those bouncing boobs and the girls were wearing completely modest outfits, would you still love the game? Inkmoney, if you can answer yes to that then more power to you.

Comfortably I can say, yes, no problem. I don't think I would have tried out the volleyball game if it wasn't for the blatant fanservice, but I can wholly enjoy the DOA fighting game franchise on its own merits and I'm not going to assume that the game is any weaker because the company chooses to focus on the fan service in their advertising.