Jimquisition: Revivify The Cold Vitae

[ScorpionPrince]

It really is a shame. I just got the Vita a few weeks ago to play persona 4 golden (this happened a little before they announced persona 4 will be available on psn) and Im amazed at just how beautiful things look on it and Ive been trying to find more stuff for it because it really is a useful machine but Im not finding much. It's a really impressive piece of tech but it needs more software to really take off

I have a Vita as well, sharing the same concerns, but now I simply have too many games for the vita. I love every single one of them. here's the list:

- Playstation allstars: Battle royale - super smash brother with playstation characters, very well executed.
- Modnation Racers - Kart racer with custom carts as well as tracks, a rare combination
- Tearaway - cute 3D platformer set in a world made entirely of paper. Uses all of the features of the vita very well.
- LittleBigPlanet Vita - 2.5D platformer with custom levels
- Final Fantasy X - JRPG with a nice story, voice-acting, interesting optional bosses, nice combat system.
- Final Fantasy X-2 - A more light-hearted story, but an arguably better combat system, very fun to play.
- Gravity Rush - An interesting action adventure where you can manipulate gravity
- Killzone Mercenary - The first FPS game on a handheld that is actually good, nice online multiplayer.
- Soul Sacrifice - A sort of monster hunter/Dark souls, with very interesting spells.
- Dragon's Crown - A very cool side scrolling brawler, with varied classes, hidden paths, a full item and leveling system
- The jak and Daxter trilogy - Very cool action platformers, focused on exploration.
- Dead or Alive 5+ - A very deep Fighter, Looks very good.
- Mortal Kombat - Less deep than DOA, but it's a lot easier to pick up and play. Plus Fatalities.

So yeah, for me personally, I don't have any troubles finding games for it.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

No TV out no buy.Same for the 3Ds I only play on a screen I read the damn text on.

 

[Cecilthedarkknight_234]

People wonder why I'm still prefer playing my psp 9 yrs later instead of getting a vita.

 

[dbenoy]

This is what happens when you support copyright.

"Big non-sequitur ahead cap'n!"
"Aye! Veer to starboard, get this lunk back on track, ye salty seadogs!"

No way, dude! It was totally uh... sequitiry! Jim was complaining about how you can't play old PS1 games on the Vita, even though the old games actually run on them just fine.

See? Copyright!

 

[hydrolythe]

I think Jim nailed it in an earlier vid when he said that Sony is basically begging for piracy. It's such a pity that they still haven't learned their lessons.

I think it goes back to what Moviebob said in his Game Overthinker V39 "The Emperor Has No Clothes"--thanks to Nintendo and Saga majorly dropping the ball in the early 1990s Sony became a major player in the game company market without really understanding what they were doing. They were the man with one eye in a kingdom of the blind but the blindness didn't last and now it has been a case of watch Nintendo and Microsoft do a much better job of selling their consoles.

I don't agree with this statement. I think its bullshit since Sony was already making video games long before anyone thought that they would make a console. Granted, most of the time their games were crappy, but it would rather be idiotic on Sony's part if they did not use their time and energy to understand nintendo's policies.

But we are not talking about making games but making consoles. Apple tried it with the Pippin and well given how well the thing is even remembered we all know how well that worked.

Nintendo the day after Sony showed off their prototype of a NES with a built in CD at the 1991 CES announced that they were scrapping the project...and the decision had been made a while ago. Nintendo's next brilliant idea was to partner with Phillips and give us the CDi resulting in what are regarded as the some of the worst licensed Nintendo games ever made and a very limited gaming console. Sony had been paying attention to what they were learning while Nintendo's partner and as Nintendo continued to figuratively shoot itself in the foot they ran with what they learned. Microsoft first effort was effectively locked out of an entire market (Japan) and Sony reaped the benefits of that along with Saga's total meltdown as a console maker.

Sony's efforts in 2004 to get into the handheld market shows they really didn't know what they were doing and PS3's price point combined with Microsoft catering to the rapidly emerging United States market and Nintendo going for the "casual" crowd resulted in a clock cleaning that indicated that Sony really didn't have a clue about the console market either. The mismanagement of the Vitae seems to bear out Moviebob's contention that Sony's 1990s success was due them to having luck that would have broke Vegas and not to them actually knowing what they were doing.

I definitely agree that the launch of the PS3 was a disaster, but that is not enough to justify that Sony indeed does not know what they are doing, because I still believe that I know what they are doing for the following reasons:

1: They have a monopoly in all PAL markets (with the exception of the UK, where the Xbox 360 was the largest selling console). This is only due to them understanding that markets outside of Japan and the United States are viable markets as well. No where is this more clear than in Brazil, because Sony released many versions of the same console over there because the next version would always be cheaper. Since they are pretty much the only console company that genuinely cares about those foreign markets they will forever be remembered there. This is mainly reflected in the fact that the FIFA series of sports games comes out on the PS2, but neither on the Gamecube nor the Xbox.

2: They used all their time and effort mainly in the development of consoles that would be more graphically powerful than their competition. You may say that the PS3 had a bad launch, but I doubt that anyone can call it a failure due to the high sales of games such as Uncharted 2: Among Thieves that take advantage of their graphical superiority.

3: They have such ties with indie developers that all other first party companies have almost no good indie companies left that could make games on their respective consoles. This is mainly because Sony started early with the attraction of indie developers on their system, those ties may already go so far back as 2009.

In conclusion: I admit that Sony has done many missteps in its life (releasing the PSP Go as competition to the DSi was just one of the many) but saying that Sony is incompetent in the console gaming business is for me just a step too far. That feels to me like saying that SNK was being idiotic just because they did not market their Neo Geo Pocket series of handhelds well.

1) It is interesting you mention Brazil because Extra Credits in their "Global Games: Brazil" piece covered that market. One of the biggest headaches is contrary to what companies claim piracy is no where near the levels in old markets like the Japan and the United States as it is in new markets. To be fair, Brazil in particular that is due to insane tariffs and import taxes: a $60 piece of software can run between $120 and $160. The pirated version? $5. So there is problem number one. Also you can still buy a brand new Saga genesis down there (or at least when EC made their piece) It certainly didn't help that until very recently Xbox life and PSN might as well not have existed in that country. Then you had the joy of the government rating games... and EVERY game...resulting in a major bottleneck. Then you have the distribution problem as there really wasn't anything even remotely like Gamestop or Steam at the time EC did their piece. So we could have a case where Sony got another streak of luck of being in the right place at the right time as was the case in the 1990s for the US market.

2) Again as Extra Credits pointed out in "Why Console Specs Don't Matter" the market has NOT gone to the console with the best specs. In the 3rd the Saga master system got its clock cleaned by the NES; in the 4th the Neo Geo got whipped by everybody else; the N64 of the 5th generation got its clock cleaned by the PS1; in the 6th the Xbox got its clock cleaned by the PS2, and in the 7th the PS3 was more powerful...if you could use the architecture...something even Sony didn't do all that good a job of and it got its clock cleaned by the Wii; and then we see the 3DS and vita sales...and well there we go again. The success of World of Warcraft in the PC world shows that graphics are not everything; it has and still is cleaning the clock of games with far superior graphics. In fact, the Amiga and the Macintosh had superior graphics to comparatively priced PCs for form the late 1980s through 1990s but got their clocks cleaned by Microsoft and far cheaper PC hardware.

3) Indie developer support is only good if your have a good handle on quality control. Shovel-ware was always a problem in the early console world and the later PC world but if you want to see it go totally off a cliff take a look at Steam; if Steam doesn't get its act together soon people will be making jokes about Steamshovel-ware. If Sony keeps a tight hold it should do well but there is the pressure of 'need more games' which could send things into a tailspin real fast.

1) Thanks, did not know that.
2) I think the title of that Extra Credits episode should have been renamed to "Why Console Specs do not attract the biggest market." because I do not believe that that is entirely true.

Rather true is that:
a) Its in the end the games and not the console itself that brings a console to the man (which is not a problem for Sony because they have lots of support from many video game companies).
b) What rather matters is how great the specs are for the price that you pay for the console (Sony indeed screwed up on it when they released the PS3, but with the PS4 it seems that Sony's risky move in the past turned profitable for them again).

So I will now throw away your argument and say that console specs do matter, no matter in which generation you reside in (except the fifth generation, there is definitely no way to defending that): The atari 2600 was only so successful because they could make original games for that console without hindering the graphical achievement that was previously successfully established with Pong Consoles (unlike the Fairchild Channel F and the RCA Studio 2, which were the 2 Second generation consoles that came before it). The Intellivision could only boast about its sports titles because back then there was no console that could replicate a sport as accurate as the Intellivision did. The Collecovision could only boast about its arcade perfect ports because they were graphically closer to the arcade than any other console could come close at the time. The Famicom was such a major hit in Japan because everyone was impressed by how graphically amazing their arcade perfect ports were, but flopped in Europe because they saw better stuff on the Commodore 64. This is also one of the reasons why the Sega Master System was more successful in Europe, as the people there never had seem something that looked more graphically appealing than what they saw on their Commodore 64's. The Neo Geo found a niche in the elite market (I mean rich people with this) because those rich people needed something for their kid to keep them at home so that they should not play arcades outside simply because they were more graphically powerful and is because of it the leading console in that market, to the point that rich people in Europe imported it from Japan to give to their kids. The Xbox managed to find a market of FPS fanboys because there were no better looking FPS's on the console of the competitors.

Bottom line: Throughout the examples I have given you can clearly see that there exist no way to better advertise a console than to show its console specs. It will never sell a console for you but if you put focus on the games (which was the reason why the Pioneer Laseractive and the RDI Halcyon, the 2 most graphical consoles of their respective generations (3rd and 4th), flopped if you don't consider their price point as an argument) it will be a guarantee that you will have someone to sell it to.

3) I do not know. It is true that Sony always had the best games seeing as how game reviewers on average gave higher reviews on games that came out on the PlayStation series of consoles than on those of any competitor. I however do not know if Sony will keep their untouchable position due to the needs more games pressure. I would have dismissed your argument back in 2005 and before it because we can clearly see that the PS1 and the PS2 had more games than any console of the competitors, but the PS3 got fewer games than the Xbox 360 did. I think the best we can do is wait to see how things will move along. I however would still put quality over quantity, perhaps the CEO of Sony thinks that way too.

 

[Atmos Duality]

No way, dude! It was totally uh... sequitiry! Jim spent the whole video complaining about game companies dominating and controlling the distribution of games to the detriment of all.

Agreed, though there are many ways and/or incentives to control media besides Copyright, you know.
Company public image, investment effort, personal hamheadedness (*glares at Capcom and Megaman*)...

I'll rewatch the video, but I don't recall Jim railing against Copyright specifically even once here.
In that, it's just kinda jarring to single out Copyright as the main culprit.

 

[maximara]

No way, dude! It was totally uh... sequitiry! Jim spent the whole video complaining about game companies dominating and controlling the distribution of games to the detriment of all.

Agreed, though there are many ways and/or incentives to control media besides Copyright, you know.
Company public image, investment effort, personal hamheadedness (*glares at Capcom and Megaman*)...

I'll rewatch the video, but I don't recall Jim railing against Copyright specifically even once here.
In that, it's just kinda jarring to single out Copyright as the main culprit.

I think Jim nailed it in an earlier vid when he said that Sony is basically begging for piracy. It's such a pity that they still haven't learned their lessons.

I think it goes back to what Moviebob said in his Game Overthinker V39 "The Emperor Has No Clothes"--thanks to Nintendo and Saga majorly dropping the ball in the early 1990s Sony became a major player in the game company market without really understanding what they were doing. They were the man with one eye in a kingdom of the blind but the blindness didn't last and now it has been a case of watch Nintendo and Microsoft do a much better job of selling their consoles.

I don't agree with this statement. I think its bullshit since Sony was already making video games long before anyone thought that they would make a console. Granted, most of the time their games were crappy, but it would rather be idiotic on Sony's part if they did not use their time and energy to understand nintendo's policies.

But we are not talking about making games but making consoles. Apple tried it with the Pippin and well given how well the thing is even remembered we all know how well that worked.

Nintendo the day after Sony showed off their prototype of a NES with a built in CD at the 1991 CES announced that they were scrapping the project...and the decision had been made a while ago. Nintendo's next brilliant idea was to partner with Phillips and give us the CDi resulting in what are regarded as the some of the worst licensed Nintendo games ever made and a very limited gaming console. Sony had been paying attention to what they were learning while Nintendo's partner and as Nintendo continued to figuratively shoot itself in the foot they ran with what they learned. Microsoft first effort was effectively locked out of an entire market (Japan) and Sony reaped the benefits of that along with Saga's total meltdown as a console maker.

Sony's efforts in 2004 to get into the handheld market shows they really didn't know what they were doing and PS3's price point combined with Microsoft catering to the rapidly emerging United States market and Nintendo going for the "casual" crowd resulted in a clock cleaning that indicated that Sony really didn't have a clue about the console market either. The mismanagement of the Vitae seems to bear out Moviebob's contention that Sony's 1990s success was due them to having luck that would have broke Vegas and not to them actually knowing what they were doing.

I definitely agree that the launch of the PS3 was a disaster, but that is not enough to justify that Sony indeed does not know what they are doing, because I still believe that I know what they are doing for the following reasons:

1: They have a monopoly in all PAL markets (with the exception of the UK, where the Xbox 360 was the largest selling console). This is only due to them understanding that markets outside of Japan and the United States are viable markets as well. No where is this more clear than in Brazil, because Sony released many versions of the same console over there because the next version would always be cheaper. Since they are pretty much the only console company that genuinely cares about those foreign markets they will forever be remembered there. This is mainly reflected in the fact that the FIFA series of sports games comes out on the PS2, but neither on the Gamecube nor the Xbox.

2: They used all their time and effort mainly in the development of consoles that would be more graphically powerful than their competition. You may say that the PS3 had a bad launch, but I doubt that anyone can call it a failure due to the high sales of games such as Uncharted 2: Among Thieves that take advantage of their graphical superiority.

3: They have such ties with indie developers that all other first party companies have almost no good indie companies left that could make games on their respective consoles. This is mainly because Sony started early with the attraction of indie developers on their system, those ties may already go so far back as 2009.

In conclusion: I admit that Sony has done many missteps in its life (releasing the PSP Go as competition to the DSi was just one of the many) but saying that Sony is incompetent in the console gaming business is for me just a step too far. That feels to me like saying that SNK was being idiotic just because they did not market their Neo Geo Pocket series of handhelds well.

1) It is interesting you mention Brazil because Extra Credits in their "Global Games: Brazil" piece covered that market. One of the biggest headaches is contrary to what companies claim piracy is no where near the levels in old markets like the Japan and the United States as it is in new markets. To be fair, Brazil in particular that is due to insane tariffs and import taxes: a $60 piece of software can run between $120 and $160. The pirated version? $5. So there is problem number one. Also you can still buy a brand new Saga genesis down there (or at least when EC made their piece) It certainly didn't help that until very recently Xbox life and PSN might as well not have existed in that country. Then you had the joy of the government rating games... and EVERY game...resulting in a major bottleneck. Then you have the distribution problem as there really wasn't anything even remotely like Gamestop or Steam at the time EC did their piece. So we could have a case where Sony got another streak of luck of being in the right place at the right time as was the case in the 1990s for the US market.

2) Again as Extra Credits pointed out in "Why Console Specs Don't Matter" the market has NOT gone to the console with the best specs. In the 3rd the Saga master system got its clock cleaned by the NES; in the 4th the Neo Geo got whipped by everybody else; the N64 of the 5th generation got its clock cleaned by the PS1; in the 6th the Xbox got its clock cleaned by the PS2, and in the 7th the PS3 was more powerful...if you could use the architecture...something even Sony didn't do all that good a job of and it got its clock cleaned by the Wii; and then we see the 3DS and vita sales...and well there we go again. The success of World of Warcraft in the PC world shows that graphics are not everything; it has and still is cleaning the clock of games with far superior graphics. In fact, the Amiga and the Macintosh had superior graphics to comparatively priced PCs for form the late 1980s through 1990s but got their clocks cleaned by Microsoft and far cheaper PC hardware.

3) Indie developer support is only good if your have a good handle on quality control. Shovel-ware was always a problem in the early console world and the later PC world but if you want to see it go totally off a cliff take a look at Steam; if Steam doesn't get its act together soon people will be making jokes about Steamshovel-ware. If Sony keeps a tight hold it should do well but there is the pressure of 'need more games' which could send things into a tailspin real fast.

1) Thanks, did not know that.
2) I think the title of that Extra Credits episode should have been renamed to "Why Console Specs do not attract the biggest market." because I do not believe that that is entirely true.

Rather true is that:
a) Its in the end the games and not the console itself that brings a console to the man (which is not a problem for Sony because they have lots of support from many video game companies).
b) What rather matters is how great the specs are for the price that you pay for the console (Sony indeed screwed up on it when they released the PS3, but with the PS4 it seems that Sony's risky move in the past turned profitable for them again).

So I will now throw away your argument and say that console specs do matter, no matter in which generation you reside in (except the fifth generation, there is definitely no way to defending that): The atari 2600 was only so successful because they could make original games for that console without hindering the graphical achievement that was previously successfully established with Pong Consoles (unlike the Fairchild Channel F and the RCA Studio 2, which were the 2 Second generation consoles that came before it). The Intellivision could only boast about its sports titles because back then there was no console that could replicate a sport as accurate as the Intellivision did. The Collecovision could only boast about its arcade perfect ports because they were graphically closer to the arcade than any other console could come close at the time. The Famicom was such a major hit in Japan because everyone was impressed by how graphically amazing their arcade perfect ports were, but flopped in Europe because they saw better stuff on the Commodore 64. This is also one of the reasons why the Sega Master System was more successful in Europe, as the people there never had seem something that looked more graphically appealing than what they saw on their Commodore 64's. The Neo Geo found a niche in the elite market (I mean rich people with this) because those rich people needed something for their kid to keep them at home so that they should not play arcades outside simply because they were more graphically powerful and is because of it the leading console in that market, to the point that rich people in Europe imported it from Japan to give to their kids. The Xbox managed to find a market of FPS fanboys because there were no better looking FPS's on the console of the competitors.

Bottom line: Throughout the examples I have given you can clearly see that there exist no way to better advertise a console than to show its console specs. It will never sell a console for you but if you put focus on the games (which was the reason why the Pioneer Laseractive and the RDI Halcyon, the 2 most graphical consoles of their respective generations (3rd and 4th), flopped if you don't consider their price point as an argument) it will be a guarantee that you will have someone to sell it to.

3) I do not know. It is true that Sony always had the best games seeing as how game reviewers on average gave higher reviews on games that came out on the PlayStation series of consoles than on those of any competitor. I however do not know if Sony will keep their untouchable position due to the needs more games pressure. I would have dismissed your argument back in 2005 and before it because we can clearly see that the PS1 and the PS2 had more games than any console of the competitors, but the PS3 got fewer games than the Xbox 360 did. I think the best we can do is wait to see how things will move along. I however would still put quality over quantity, perhaps the CEO of Sony thinks that way too.

2) Ah but that was one of the points of EC's "Why Console Specs Don't Matter" was price point so that was a factor. It also was a point in Moviebob's Game Overthinker V39 "The Emperor Has No Clothes" as one of the reasons the PS3 got it butt handed to it (the other was that its killer game was about a year away from launch and its library was tepid). Their knee jerk reaction to adding motion control messed up Lair (which already had it share of problems) making a bad situation worse.

Moviebob's "The Fate of Nintendo" goes into how the WiiU is having a resulting "meh" in the market and why. He also feels that there is a 50-50 chance that this or the next generation of consoles (Or more accurately end of gaming dedicated consoles with library exclusivity) will likely be the last.

To an extent I think he is right. The low end PC market is following Apple's iMac all-in-one with limited (if any) hardware diversity roadmap (look for "all in one PC" via goggle to see what I mean). This lessens the one key advantage of consoles over the old type of PC--hardware consistency. Throw in smartphone and tablets and the console future gets even bleaker (especially if you figure USB and-or bluetooth can be used to add on controllers the tablet doesn't don't do well emulating)

Extra Credits feels that this is the way things are going as well in their "Consoles Are the New Coin-Op" from 2011 (they add in netbooks to the mix as well).

 

[hydrolythe]

No way, dude! It was totally uh... sequitiry! Jim spent the whole video complaining about game companies dominating and controlling the distribution of games to the detriment of all.

Agreed, though there are many ways and/or incentives to control media besides Copyright, you know.
Company public image, investment effort, personal hamheadedness (*glares at Capcom and Megaman*)...

I'll rewatch the video, but I don't recall Jim railing against Copyright specifically even once here.
In that, it's just kinda jarring to single out Copyright as the main culprit.

I think Jim nailed it in an earlier vid when he said that Sony is basically begging for piracy. It's such a pity that they still haven't learned their lessons.

I think it goes back to what Moviebob said in his Game Overthinker V39 "The Emperor Has No Clothes"--thanks to Nintendo and Saga majorly dropping the ball in the early 1990s Sony became a major player in the game company market without really understanding what they were doing. They were the man with one eye in a kingdom of the blind but the blindness didn't last and now it has been a case of watch Nintendo and Microsoft do a much better job of selling their consoles.

I don't agree with this statement. I think its bullshit since Sony was already making video games long before anyone thought that they would make a console. Granted, most of the time their games were crappy, but it would rather be idiotic on Sony's part if they did not use their time and energy to understand nintendo's policies.

But we are not talking about making games but making consoles. Apple tried it with the Pippin and well given how well the thing is even remembered we all know how well that worked.

Nintendo the day after Sony showed off their prototype of a NES with a built in CD at the 1991 CES announced that they were scrapping the project...and the decision had been made a while ago. Nintendo's next brilliant idea was to partner with Phillips and give us the CDi resulting in what are regarded as the some of the worst licensed Nintendo games ever made and a very limited gaming console. Sony had been paying attention to what they were learning while Nintendo's partner and as Nintendo continued to figuratively shoot itself in the foot they ran with what they learned. Microsoft first effort was effectively locked out of an entire market (Japan) and Sony reaped the benefits of that along with Saga's total meltdown as a console maker.

Sony's efforts in 2004 to get into the handheld market shows they really didn't know what they were doing and PS3's price point combined with Microsoft catering to the rapidly emerging United States market and Nintendo going for the "casual" crowd resulted in a clock cleaning that indicated that Sony really didn't have a clue about the console market either. The mismanagement of the Vitae seems to bear out Moviebob's contention that Sony's 1990s success was due them to having luck that would have broke Vegas and not to them actually knowing what they were doing.

I definitely agree that the launch of the PS3 was a disaster, but that is not enough to justify that Sony indeed does not know what they are doing, because I still believe that I know what they are doing for the following reasons:

1: They have a monopoly in all PAL markets (with the exception of the UK, where the Xbox 360 was the largest selling console). This is only due to them understanding that markets outside of Japan and the United States are viable markets as well. No where is this more clear than in Brazil, because Sony released many versions of the same console over there because the next version would always be cheaper. Since they are pretty much the only console company that genuinely cares about those foreign markets they will forever be remembered there. This is mainly reflected in the fact that the FIFA series of sports games comes out on the PS2, but neither on the Gamecube nor the Xbox.

2: They used all their time and effort mainly in the development of consoles that would be more graphically powerful than their competition. You may say that the PS3 had a bad launch, but I doubt that anyone can call it a failure due to the high sales of games such as Uncharted 2: Among Thieves that take advantage of their graphical superiority.

3: They have such ties with indie developers that all other first party companies have almost no good indie companies left that could make games on their respective consoles. This is mainly because Sony started early with the attraction of indie developers on their system, those ties may already go so far back as 2009.

In conclusion: I admit that Sony has done many missteps in its life (releasing the PSP Go as competition to the DSi was just one of the many) but saying that Sony is incompetent in the console gaming business is for me just a step too far. That feels to me like saying that SNK was being idiotic just because they did not market their Neo Geo Pocket series of handhelds well.

1) It is interesting you mention Brazil because Extra Credits in their "Global Games: Brazil" piece covered that market. One of the biggest headaches is contrary to what companies claim piracy is no where near the levels in old markets like the Japan and the United States as it is in new markets. To be fair, Brazil in particular that is due to insane tariffs and import taxes: a $60 piece of software can run between $120 and $160. The pirated version? $5. So there is problem number one. Also you can still buy a brand new Saga genesis down there (or at least when EC made their piece) It certainly didn't help that until very recently Xbox life and PSN might as well not have existed in that country. Then you had the joy of the government rating games... and EVERY game...resulting in a major bottleneck. Then you have the distribution problem as there really wasn't anything even remotely like Gamestop or Steam at the time EC did their piece. So we could have a case where Sony got another streak of luck of being in the right place at the right time as was the case in the 1990s for the US market.

2) Again as Extra Credits pointed out in "Why Console Specs Don't Matter" the market has NOT gone to the console with the best specs. In the 3rd the Saga master system got its clock cleaned by the NES; in the 4th the Neo Geo got whipped by everybody else; the N64 of the 5th generation got its clock cleaned by the PS1; in the 6th the Xbox got its clock cleaned by the PS2, and in the 7th the PS3 was more powerful...if you could use the architecture...something even Sony didn't do all that good a job of and it got its clock cleaned by the Wii; and then we see the 3DS and vita sales...and well there we go again. The success of World of Warcraft in the PC world shows that graphics are not everything; it has and still is cleaning the clock of games with far superior graphics. In fact, the Amiga and the Macintosh had superior graphics to comparatively priced PCs for form the late 1980s through 1990s but got their clocks cleaned by Microsoft and far cheaper PC hardware.

3) Indie developer support is only good if your have a good handle on quality control. Shovel-ware was always a problem in the early console world and the later PC world but if you want to see it go totally off a cliff take a look at Steam; if Steam doesn't get its act together soon people will be making jokes about Steamshovel-ware. If Sony keeps a tight hold it should do well but there is the pressure of 'need more games' which could send things into a tailspin real fast.

1) Thanks, did not know that.
2) I think the title of that Extra Credits episode should have been renamed to "Why Console Specs do not attract the biggest market." because I do not believe that that is entirely true.

Rather true is that:
a) Its in the end the games and not the console itself that brings a console to the man (which is not a problem for Sony because they have lots of support from many video game companies).
b) What rather matters is how great the specs are for the price that you pay for the console (Sony indeed screwed up on it when they released the PS3, but with the PS4 it seems that Sony's risky move in the past turned profitable for them again).

So I will now throw away your argument and say that console specs do matter, no matter in which generation you reside in (except the fifth generation, there is definitely no way to defending that): The atari 2600 was only so successful because they could make original games for that console without hindering the graphical achievement that was previously successfully established with Pong Consoles (unlike the Fairchild Channel F and the RCA Studio 2, which were the 2 Second generation consoles that came before it). The Intellivision could only boast about its sports titles because back then there was no console that could replicate a sport as accurate as the Intellivision did. The Collecovision could only boast about its arcade perfect ports because they were graphically closer to the arcade than any other console could come close at the time. The Famicom was such a major hit in Japan because everyone was impressed by how graphically amazing their arcade perfect ports were, but flopped in Europe because they saw better stuff on the Commodore 64. This is also one of the reasons why the Sega Master System was more successful in Europe, as the people there never had seem something that looked more graphically appealing than what they saw on their Commodore 64's. The Neo Geo found a niche in the elite market (I mean rich people with this) because those rich people needed something for their kid to keep them at home so that they should not play arcades outside simply because they were more graphically powerful and is because of it the leading console in that market, to the point that rich people in Europe imported it from Japan to give to their kids. The Xbox managed to find a market of FPS fanboys because there were no better looking FPS's on the console of the competitors.

Bottom line: Throughout the examples I have given you can clearly see that there exist no way to better advertise a console than to show its console specs. It will never sell a console for you but if you put focus on the games (which was the reason why the Pioneer Laseractive and the RDI Halcyon, the 2 most graphical consoles of their respective generations (3rd and 4th), flopped if you don't consider their price point as an argument) it will be a guarantee that you will have someone to sell it to.

3) I do not know. It is true that Sony always had the best games seeing as how game reviewers on average gave higher reviews on games that came out on the PlayStation series of consoles than on those of any competitor. I however do not know if Sony will keep their untouchable position due to the needs more games pressure. I would have dismissed your argument back in 2005 and before it because we can clearly see that the PS1 and the PS2 had more games than any console of the competitors, but the PS3 got fewer games than the Xbox 360 did. I think the best we can do is wait to see how things will move along. I however would still put quality over quantity, perhaps the CEO of Sony thinks that way too.

2) Ah but that was one of the points of EC's "Why Console Specs Don't Matter" was price point so that was a factor. It also was a point in Moviebob's Game Overthinker V39 "The Emperor Has No Clothes" as one of the reasons the PS3 got it butt handed to it (the other was that its killer game was about a year away from launch and its library was tepid). Their knee jerk reaction to adding motion control messed up Lair (which already had it share of problems) making a bad situation worse.

Moviebob's "The Fate of Nintendo" goes into how the WiiU is having a resulting "meh" in the market and why. He also feels that there is a 50-50 chance that this or the next generation of consoles (Or more accurately end of gaming dedicated consoles with library exclusivity) will likely be the last.

To an extent I think he is right. The low end PC market is following Apple's iMac all-in-one with limited (if any) hardware diversity roadmap (look for "all in one PC" via goggle to see what I mean). This lessens the one key advantage of consoles over the old type of PC--hardware consistency. Throw in smartphone and tablets and the console future gets even bleaker (especially if you figure USB and-or bluetooth can be used to add on controllers the tablet doesn't don't do well emulating)

Extra Credits feels that this is the way things are going as well in their "Consoles Are the New Coin-Op" from 2011 (they add in netbooks to the mix as well).

So you agree with me that Sony has knowledge about the market they are in.

Anyhow, I do not think that this console generation (or the next) is going to be the last because of smartphones, tablets etc.

Microsoft actually indeed thought that the future was only in the smartphone and tablet industry so they made the Xbox One, an all-in-one multimedia machine that barely qualifies as a console. Right now I only see it being successful in the US and the UK (and it may show indeed that the US and UK market will be dominated by multimedia machines).

Meanwhile Sony seems to focus more on games. You clearly see that Sony wants to attract good indie developers, focuses more on solid hardware (4K Resolution) than menu options or gimmicks and does as many advertising as possible to attract actual gamers (reflected in their slogan "This is for the gamers").

Right now Sony is selling more PS4's than Microsoft is selling Xbox One's. This may hint that the assumption that console gaming will die out is untrue.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

Have you shopped online in the last, like, two years?

Yes, I have.

You can't seriously be arguing that there's performance for the cost of a PS Vita, card, the equivalent of a class 4, when you can get a class 10 card of much higher capacity for less, can you?

No. I never defended Sony's cards. I was taking issue with your contention that people who paid more than what you paid for flash memory are getting ripped off.

There are many valid reasons to buy more expensive cards to get the reliability and performance. For example, if you work in video, buying a cheap card could cost you hundred or thousands of dollars because a shot failed or a file became corrupted. Paying a bit extra for quality storage is well worth it if it's important data, and needs to perform under pressure.

I see the "memory is cheap" fallacy all the time when I'm training video production students. They'll go to a discount place and buy the cheapest card available, thinking they got a bargain, and then wonder why it fails. Saying that people who "paid more than X" are suckers just perpetuates this lack of thinking.

 

[maximara]

No way, dude! It was totally uh... sequitiry! Jim spent the whole video complaining about game companies dominating and controlling the distribution of games to the detriment of all.

Agreed, though there are many ways and/or incentives to control media besides Copyright, you know.
Company public image, investment effort, personal hamheadedness (*glares at Capcom and Megaman*)...

I'll rewatch the video, but I don't recall Jim railing against Copyright specifically even once here.
In that, it's just kinda jarring to single out Copyright as the main culprit.

I think Jim nailed it in an earlier vid when he said that Sony is basically begging for piracy. It's such a pity that they still haven't learned their lessons.

I think it goes back to what Moviebob said in his Game Overthinker V39 "The Emperor Has No Clothes"--thanks to Nintendo and Saga majorly dropping the ball in the early 1990s Sony became a major player in the game company market without really understanding what they were doing. They were the man with one eye in a kingdom of the blind but the blindness didn't last and now it has been a case of watch Nintendo and Microsoft do a much better job of selling their consoles.

I don't agree with this statement. I think its bullshit since Sony was already making video games long before anyone thought that they would make a console. Granted, most of the time their games were crappy, but it would rather be idiotic on Sony's part if they did not use their time and energy to understand nintendo's policies.

But we are not talking about making games but making consoles. Apple tried it with the Pippin and well given how well the thing is even remembered we all know how well that worked.

Nintendo the day after Sony showed off their prototype of a NES with a built in CD at the 1991 CES announced that they were scrapping the project...and the decision had been made a while ago. Nintendo's next brilliant idea was to partner with Phillips and give us the CDi resulting in what are regarded as the some of the worst licensed Nintendo games ever made and a very limited gaming console. Sony had been paying attention to what they were learning while Nintendo's partner and as Nintendo continued to figuratively shoot itself in the foot they ran with what they learned. Microsoft first effort was effectively locked out of an entire market (Japan) and Sony reaped the benefits of that along with Saga's total meltdown as a console maker.

Sony's efforts in 2004 to get into the handheld market shows they really didn't know what they were doing and PS3's price point combined with Microsoft catering to the rapidly emerging United States market and Nintendo going for the "casual" crowd resulted in a clock cleaning that indicated that Sony really didn't have a clue about the console market either. The mismanagement of the Vitae seems to bear out Moviebob's contention that Sony's 1990s success was due them to having luck that would have broke Vegas and not to them actually knowing what they were doing.

I definitely agree that the launch of the PS3 was a disaster, but that is not enough to justify that Sony indeed does not know what they are doing, because I still believe that I know what they are doing for the following reasons:

1: They have a monopoly in all PAL markets (with the exception of the UK, where the Xbox 360 was the largest selling console). This is only due to them understanding that markets outside of Japan and the United States are viable markets as well. No where is this more clear than in Brazil, because Sony released many versions of the same console over there because the next version would always be cheaper. Since they are pretty much the only console company that genuinely cares about those foreign markets they will forever be remembered there. This is mainly reflected in the fact that the FIFA series of sports games comes out on the PS2, but neither on the Gamecube nor the Xbox.

2: They used all their time and effort mainly in the development of consoles that would be more graphically powerful than their competition. You may say that the PS3 had a bad launch, but I doubt that anyone can call it a failure due to the high sales of games such as Uncharted 2: Among Thieves that take advantage of their graphical superiority.

3: They have such ties with indie developers that all other first party companies have almost no good indie companies left that could make games on their respective consoles. This is mainly because Sony started early with the attraction of indie developers on their system, those ties may already go so far back as 2009.

In conclusion: I admit that Sony has done many missteps in its life (releasing the PSP Go as competition to the DSi was just one of the many) but saying that Sony is incompetent in the console gaming business is for me just a step too far. That feels to me like saying that SNK was being idiotic just because they did not market their Neo Geo Pocket series of handhelds well.

1) It is interesting you mention Brazil because Extra Credits in their "Global Games: Brazil" piece covered that market. One of the biggest headaches is contrary to what companies claim piracy is no where near the levels in old markets like the Japan and the United States as it is in new markets. To be fair, Brazil in particular that is due to insane tariffs and import taxes: a $60 piece of software can run between $120 and $160. The pirated version? $5. So there is problem number one. Also you can still buy a brand new Saga genesis down there (or at least when EC made their piece) It certainly didn't help that until very recently Xbox life and PSN might as well not have existed in that country. Then you had the joy of the government rating games... and EVERY game...resulting in a major bottleneck. Then you have the distribution problem as there really wasn't anything even remotely like Gamestop or Steam at the time EC did their piece. So we could have a case where Sony got another streak of luck of being in the right place at the right time as was the case in the 1990s for the US market.

2) Again as Extra Credits pointed out in "Why Console Specs Don't Matter" the market has NOT gone to the console with the best specs. In the 3rd the Saga master system got its clock cleaned by the NES; in the 4th the Neo Geo got whipped by everybody else; the N64 of the 5th generation got its clock cleaned by the PS1; in the 6th the Xbox got its clock cleaned by the PS2, and in the 7th the PS3 was more powerful...if you could use the architecture...something even Sony didn't do all that good a job of and it got its clock cleaned by the Wii; and then we see the 3DS and vita sales...and well there we go again. The success of World of Warcraft in the PC world shows that graphics are not everything; it has and still is cleaning the clock of games with far superior graphics. In fact, the Amiga and the Macintosh had superior graphics to comparatively priced PCs for form the late 1980s through 1990s but got their clocks cleaned by Microsoft and far cheaper PC hardware.

3) Indie developer support is only good if your have a good handle on quality control. Shovel-ware was always a problem in the early console world and the later PC world but if you want to see it go totally off a cliff take a look at Steam; if Steam doesn't get its act together soon people will be making jokes about Steamshovel-ware. If Sony keeps a tight hold it should do well but there is the pressure of 'need more games' which could send things into a tailspin real fast.

1) Thanks, did not know that.
2) I think the title of that Extra Credits episode should have been renamed to "Why Console Specs do not attract the biggest market." because I do not believe that that is entirely true.

Rather true is that:
a) Its in the end the games and not the console itself that brings a console to the man (which is not a problem for Sony because they have lots of support from many video game companies).
b) What rather matters is how great the specs are for the price that you pay for the console (Sony indeed screwed up on it when they released the PS3, but with the PS4 it seems that Sony's risky move in the past turned profitable for them again).

So I will now throw away your argument and say that console specs do matter, no matter in which generation you reside in (except the fifth generation, there is definitely no way to defending that): The atari 2600 was only so successful because they could make original games for that console without hindering the graphical achievement that was previously successfully established with Pong Consoles (unlike the Fairchild Channel F and the RCA Studio 2, which were the 2 Second generation consoles that came before it). The Intellivision could only boast about its sports titles because back then there was no console that could replicate a sport as accurate as the Intellivision did. The Collecovision could only boast about its arcade perfect ports because they were graphically closer to the arcade than any other console could come close at the time. The Famicom was such a major hit in Japan because everyone was impressed by how graphically amazing their arcade perfect ports were, but flopped in Europe because they saw better stuff on the Commodore 64. This is also one of the reasons why the Sega Master System was more successful in Europe, as the people there never had seem something that looked more graphically appealing than what they saw on their Commodore 64's. The Neo Geo found a niche in the elite market (I mean rich people with this) because those rich people needed something for their kid to keep them at home so that they should not play arcades outside simply because they were more graphically powerful and is because of it the leading console in that market, to the point that rich people in Europe imported it from Japan to give to their kids. The Xbox managed to find a market of FPS fanboys because there were no better looking FPS's on the console of the competitors.

Bottom line: Throughout the examples I have given you can clearly see that there exist no way to better advertise a console than to show its console specs. It will never sell a console for you but if you put focus on the games (which was the reason why the Pioneer Laseractive and the RDI Halcyon, the 2 most graphical consoles of their respective generations (3rd and 4th), flopped if you don't consider their price point as an argument) it will be a guarantee that you will have someone to sell it to.

3) I do not know. It is true that Sony always had the best games seeing as how game reviewers on average gave higher reviews on games that came out on the PlayStation series of consoles than on those of any competitor. I however do not know if Sony will keep their untouchable position due to the needs more games pressure. I would have dismissed your argument back in 2005 and before it because we can clearly see that the PS1 and the PS2 had more games than any console of the competitors, but the PS3 got fewer games than the Xbox 360 did. I think the best we can do is wait to see how things will move along. I however would still put quality over quantity, perhaps the CEO of Sony thinks that way too.

2) Ah but that was one of the points of EC's "Why Console Specs Don't Matter" was price point so that was a factor. It also was a point in Moviebob's Game Overthinker V39 "The Emperor Has No Clothes" as one of the reasons the PS3 got it butt handed to it (the other was that its killer game was about a year away from launch and its library was tepid). Their knee jerk reaction to adding motion control messed up Lair (which already had it share of problems) making a bad situation worse.

Moviebob's "The Fate of Nintendo" goes into how the WiiU is having a resulting "meh" in the market and why. He also feels that there is a 50-50 chance that this or the next generation of consoles (Or more accurately end of gaming dedicated consoles with library exclusivity) will likely be the last.

To an extent I think he is right. The low end PC market is following Apple's iMac all-in-one with limited (if any) hardware diversity roadmap (look for "all in one PC" via goggle to see what I mean). This lessens the one key advantage of consoles over the old type of PC--hardware consistency. Throw in smartphone and tablets and the console future gets even bleaker (especially if you figure USB and-or bluetooth can be used to add on controllers the tablet doesn't don't do well emulating)

Extra Credits feels that this is the way things are going as well in their "Consoles Are the New Coin-Op" from 2011 (they add in netbooks to the mix as well).

So you agree with me that Sony has knowledge about the market they are in.

Anyhow, I do not think that this console generation (or the next) is going to be the last because of smartphones, tablets etc.

Microsoft actually indeed thought that the future was only in the smartphone and tablet industry so they made the Xbox One, an all-in-one multimedia machine that barely qualifies as a console. Right now I only see it being successful in the US and the UK (and it may show indeed that the US and UK market will be dominated by multimedia machines).

Meanwhile Sony seems to focus more on games. You clearly see that Sony wants to attract good indie developers, focuses more on solid hardware (4K Resolution) than menu options or gimmicks and does as many advertising as possible to attract actual gamers (reflected in their slogan "This is for the gamers").

Right now Sony is selling more PS4's than Microsoft is selling Xbox One's. This may hint that the assumption that console gaming will die out is untrue.

Actually the success of the PS4 is more the return of the 1990s luck Moviebob was on about. Microsoft's mishandling of the Xbox one hurt them and Nintendo's holding on to the old ways (doing the virtual library like Columbia House rather iTunes really bad move) similarly hurt them. To paraphrase Moviebob "the competition keep messing up and Sony reaped the benefits".

If Sony really knew what they were doing the vita wouldn't be having the problems it is having and they would have cross licensed games from the get go (don't put all your games on one platform, grasshopper). Nintendo is having the issue of watching is casual gamets going to the smartphones and tablets to the point that *they* are kicking around the idea of going into the smartphone market. Think about that; the one company whose experience goes back to the "golden age" of consoles is thinking about going into smartphone development.

 

[hydrolythe]

No way, dude! It was totally uh... sequitiry! Jim spent the whole video complaining about game companies dominating and controlling the distribution of games to the detriment of all.

Agreed, though there are many ways and/or incentives to control media besides Copyright, you know.
Company public image, investment effort, personal hamheadedness (*glares at Capcom and Megaman*)...

I'll rewatch the video, but I don't recall Jim railing against Copyright specifically even once here.
In that, it's just kinda jarring to single out Copyright as the main culprit.

I think Jim nailed it in an earlier vid when he said that Sony is basically begging for piracy. It's such a pity that they still haven't learned their lessons.

I think it goes back to what Moviebob said in his Game Overthinker V39 "The Emperor Has No Clothes"--thanks to Nintendo and Saga majorly dropping the ball in the early 1990s Sony became a major player in the game company market without really understanding what they were doing. They were the man with one eye in a kingdom of the blind but the blindness didn't last and now it has been a case of watch Nintendo and Microsoft do a much better job of selling their consoles.

I don't agree with this statement. I think its bullshit since Sony was already making video games long before anyone thought that they would make a console. Granted, most of the time their games were crappy, but it would rather be idiotic on Sony's part if they did not use their time and energy to understand nintendo's policies.

But we are not talking about making games but making consoles. Apple tried it with the Pippin and well given how well the thing is even remembered we all know how well that worked.

Nintendo the day after Sony showed off their prototype of a NES with a built in CD at the 1991 CES announced that they were scrapping the project...and the decision had been made a while ago. Nintendo's next brilliant idea was to partner with Phillips and give us the CDi resulting in what are regarded as the some of the worst licensed Nintendo games ever made and a very limited gaming console. Sony had been paying attention to what they were learning while Nintendo's partner and as Nintendo continued to figuratively shoot itself in the foot they ran with what they learned. Microsoft first effort was effectively locked out of an entire market (Japan) and Sony reaped the benefits of that along with Saga's total meltdown as a console maker.

Sony's efforts in 2004 to get into the handheld market shows they really didn't know what they were doing and PS3's price point combined with Microsoft catering to the rapidly emerging United States market and Nintendo going for the "casual" crowd resulted in a clock cleaning that indicated that Sony really didn't have a clue about the console market either. The mismanagement of the Vitae seems to bear out Moviebob's contention that Sony's 1990s success was due them to having luck that would have broke Vegas and not to them actually knowing what they were doing.

I definitely agree that the launch of the PS3 was a disaster, but that is not enough to justify that Sony indeed does not know what they are doing, because I still believe that I know what they are doing for the following reasons:

1: They have a monopoly in all PAL markets (with the exception of the UK, where the Xbox 360 was the largest selling console). This is only due to them understanding that markets outside of Japan and the United States are viable markets as well. No where is this more clear than in Brazil, because Sony released many versions of the same console over there because the next version would always be cheaper. Since they are pretty much the only console company that genuinely cares about those foreign markets they will forever be remembered there. This is mainly reflected in the fact that the FIFA series of sports games comes out on the PS2, but neither on the Gamecube nor the Xbox.

2: They used all their time and effort mainly in the development of consoles that would be more graphically powerful than their competition. You may say that the PS3 had a bad launch, but I doubt that anyone can call it a failure due to the high sales of games such as Uncharted 2: Among Thieves that take advantage of their graphical superiority.

3: They have such ties with indie developers that all other first party companies have almost no good indie companies left that could make games on their respective consoles. This is mainly because Sony started early with the attraction of indie developers on their system, those ties may already go so far back as 2009.

In conclusion: I admit that Sony has done many missteps in its life (releasing the PSP Go as competition to the DSi was just one of the many) but saying that Sony is incompetent in the console gaming business is for me just a step too far. That feels to me like saying that SNK was being idiotic just because they did not market their Neo Geo Pocket series of handhelds well.

1) It is interesting you mention Brazil because Extra Credits in their "Global Games: Brazil" piece covered that market. One of the biggest headaches is contrary to what companies claim piracy is no where near the levels in old markets like the Japan and the United States as it is in new markets. To be fair, Brazil in particular that is due to insane tariffs and import taxes: a $60 piece of software can run between $120 and $160. The pirated version? $5. So there is problem number one. Also you can still buy a brand new Saga genesis down there (or at least when EC made their piece) It certainly didn't help that until very recently Xbox life and PSN might as well not have existed in that country. Then you had the joy of the government rating games... and EVERY game...resulting in a major bottleneck. Then you have the distribution problem as there really wasn't anything even remotely like Gamestop or Steam at the time EC did their piece. So we could have a case where Sony got another streak of luck of being in the right place at the right time as was the case in the 1990s for the US market.

2) Again as Extra Credits pointed out in "Why Console Specs Don't Matter" the market has NOT gone to the console with the best specs. In the 3rd the Saga master system got its clock cleaned by the NES; in the 4th the Neo Geo got whipped by everybody else; the N64 of the 5th generation got its clock cleaned by the PS1; in the 6th the Xbox got its clock cleaned by the PS2, and in the 7th the PS3 was more powerful...if you could use the architecture...something even Sony didn't do all that good a job of and it got its clock cleaned by the Wii; and then we see the 3DS and vita sales...and well there we go again. The success of World of Warcraft in the PC world shows that graphics are not everything; it has and still is cleaning the clock of games with far superior graphics. In fact, the Amiga and the Macintosh had superior graphics to comparatively priced PCs for form the late 1980s through 1990s but got their clocks cleaned by Microsoft and far cheaper PC hardware.

3) Indie developer support is only good if your have a good handle on quality control. Shovel-ware was always a problem in the early console world and the later PC world but if you want to see it go totally off a cliff take a look at Steam; if Steam doesn't get its act together soon people will be making jokes about Steamshovel-ware. If Sony keeps a tight hold it should do well but there is the pressure of 'need more games' which could send things into a tailspin real fast.

1) Thanks, did not know that.
2) I think the title of that Extra Credits episode should have been renamed to "Why Console Specs do not attract the biggest market." because I do not believe that that is entirely true.

Rather true is that:
a) Its in the end the games and not the console itself that brings a console to the man (which is not a problem for Sony because they have lots of support from many video game companies).
b) What rather matters is how great the specs are for the price that you pay for the console (Sony indeed screwed up on it when they released the PS3, but with the PS4 it seems that Sony's risky move in the past turned profitable for them again).

So I will now throw away your argument and say that console specs do matter, no matter in which generation you reside in (except the fifth generation, there is definitely no way to defending that): The atari 2600 was only so successful because they could make original games for that console without hindering the graphical achievement that was previously successfully established with Pong Consoles (unlike the Fairchild Channel F and the RCA Studio 2, which were the 2 Second generation consoles that came before it). The Intellivision could only boast about its sports titles because back then there was no console that could replicate a sport as accurate as the Intellivision did. The Collecovision could only boast about its arcade perfect ports because they were graphically closer to the arcade than any other console could come close at the time. The Famicom was such a major hit in Japan because everyone was impressed by how graphically amazing their arcade perfect ports were, but flopped in Europe because they saw better stuff on the Commodore 64. This is also one of the reasons why the Sega Master System was more successful in Europe, as the people there never had seem something that looked more graphically appealing than what they saw on their Commodore 64's. The Neo Geo found a niche in the elite market (I mean rich people with this) because those rich people needed something for their kid to keep them at home so that they should not play arcades outside simply because they were more graphically powerful and is because of it the leading console in that market, to the point that rich people in Europe imported it from Japan to give to their kids. The Xbox managed to find a market of FPS fanboys because there were no better looking FPS's on the console of the competitors.

Bottom line: Throughout the examples I have given you can clearly see that there exist no way to better advertise a console than to show its console specs. It will never sell a console for you but if you put focus on the games (which was the reason why the Pioneer Laseractive and the RDI Halcyon, the 2 most graphical consoles of their respective generations (3rd and 4th), flopped if you don't consider their price point as an argument) it will be a guarantee that you will have someone to sell it to.

3) I do not know. It is true that Sony always had the best games seeing as how game reviewers on average gave higher reviews on games that came out on the PlayStation series of consoles than on those of any competitor. I however do not know if Sony will keep their untouchable position due to the needs more games pressure. I would have dismissed your argument back in 2005 and before it because we can clearly see that the PS1 and the PS2 had more games than any console of the competitors, but the PS3 got fewer games than the Xbox 360 did. I think the best we can do is wait to see how things will move along. I however would still put quality over quantity, perhaps the CEO of Sony thinks that way too.

2) Ah but that was one of the points of EC's "Why Console Specs Don't Matter" was price point so that was a factor. It also was a point in Moviebob's Game Overthinker V39 "The Emperor Has No Clothes" as one of the reasons the PS3 got it butt handed to it (the other was that its killer game was about a year away from launch and its library was tepid). Their knee jerk reaction to adding motion control messed up Lair (which already had it share of problems) making a bad situation worse.

Moviebob's "The Fate of Nintendo" goes into how the WiiU is having a resulting "meh" in the market and why. He also feels that there is a 50-50 chance that this or the next generation of consoles (Or more accurately end of gaming dedicated consoles with library exclusivity) will likely be the last.

To an extent I think he is right. The low end PC market is following Apple's iMac all-in-one with limited (if any) hardware diversity roadmap (look for "all in one PC" via goggle to see what I mean). This lessens the one key advantage of consoles over the old type of PC--hardware consistency. Throw in smartphone and tablets and the console future gets even bleaker (especially if you figure USB and-or bluetooth can be used to add on controllers the tablet doesn't don't do well emulating)

Extra Credits feels that this is the way things are going as well in their "Consoles Are the New Coin-Op" from 2011 (they add in netbooks to the mix as well).

So you agree with me that Sony has knowledge about the market they are in.

Anyhow, I do not think that this console generation (or the next) is going to be the last because of smartphones, tablets etc.

Microsoft actually indeed thought that the future was only in the smartphone and tablet industry so they made the Xbox One, an all-in-one multimedia machine that barely qualifies as a console. Right now I only see it being successful in the US and the UK (and it may show indeed that the US and UK market will be dominated by multimedia machines).

Meanwhile Sony seems to focus more on games. You clearly see that Sony wants to attract good indie developers, focuses more on solid hardware (4K Resolution) than menu options or gimmicks and does as many advertising as possible to attract actual gamers (reflected in their slogan "This is for the gamers").

Right now Sony is selling more PS4's than Microsoft is selling Xbox One's. This may hint that the assumption that console gaming will die out is untrue.

Actually the success of the PS4 is more the return of the 1990s luck Moviebob was on about. Microsoft's mishandling of the Xbox one hurt them and Nintendo's holding on to the old ways (doing the virtual library like Columbia House rather iTunes really bad move) similarly hurt them. To paraphrase Moviebob "the competition keep messing up and Sony reaped the benefits".

If Sony really knew what they were doing the vita wouldn't be having the problems it is having and they would have cross licensed games from the get go (don't put all your games on one platform, grasshopper). Nintendo is having the issue of watching is casual gamets going to the smartphones and tablets to the point that *they* are kicking around the idea of going into the smartphone market. Think about that; the one company whose experience goes back to the "golden age" of consoles is thinking about going into smartphone development.

It is like if you are saying that Sega got successful with the Sega Genesis because nintendo and NEC screwed up. Arguing that if Sega had any competence at all that the Sega Game Gear would not have the problems it is having.

And right now every console company is believing that the future is in smartphones and tablets. Even Sony who does the exact opposite believes in the death of consoles, but that does not mean that every company will abandon their consoles to go onto smartphones and tablets.

Microsoft already predicted that consoles will not be consoles anymore but multimedia machines before anyone else. Believing that they already made a machine after their philosophy. As you can guess that model is only selling in the US and in the UK. I can believe that in those markets console gaming will die out and that the smartphone and tablet market will be the only markets that will keep having video games but I can not think of any reason why it would die out in any other market.

 

[maximara]

No way, dude! It was totally uh... sequitiry! Jim spent the whole video complaining about game companies dominating and controlling the distribution of games to the detriment of all.

Agreed, though there are many ways and/or incentives to control media besides Copyright, you know.
Company public image, investment effort, personal hamheadedness (*glares at Capcom and Megaman*)...

I'll rewatch the video, but I don't recall Jim railing against Copyright specifically even once here.
In that, it's just kinda jarring to single out Copyright as the main culprit.

I think Jim nailed it in an earlier vid when he said that Sony is basically begging for piracy. It's such a pity that they still haven't learned their lessons.

I think it goes back to what Moviebob said in his Game Overthinker V39 "The Emperor Has No Clothes"--thanks to Nintendo and Saga majorly dropping the ball in the early 1990s Sony became a major player in the game company market without really understanding what they were doing. They were the man with one eye in a kingdom of the blind but the blindness didn't last and now it has been a case of watch Nintendo and Microsoft do a much better job of selling their consoles.

I don't agree with this statement. I think its bullshit since Sony was already making video games long before anyone thought that they would make a console. Granted, most of the time their games were crappy, but it would rather be idiotic on Sony's part if they did not use their time and energy to understand nintendo's policies.

But we are not talking about making games but making consoles. Apple tried it with the Pippin and well given how well the thing is even remembered we all know how well that worked.

Nintendo the day after Sony showed off their prototype of a NES with a built in CD at the 1991 CES announced that they were scrapping the project...and the decision had been made a while ago. Nintendo's next brilliant idea was to partner with Phillips and give us the CDi resulting in what are regarded as the some of the worst licensed Nintendo games ever made and a very limited gaming console. Sony had been paying attention to what they were learning while Nintendo's partner and as Nintendo continued to figuratively shoot itself in the foot they ran with what they learned. Microsoft first effort was effectively locked out of an entire market (Japan) and Sony reaped the benefits of that along with Saga's total meltdown as a console maker.

Sony's efforts in 2004 to get into the handheld market shows they really didn't know what they were doing and PS3's price point combined with Microsoft catering to the rapidly emerging United States market and Nintendo going for the "casual" crowd resulted in a clock cleaning that indicated that Sony really didn't have a clue about the console market either. The mismanagement of the Vitae seems to bear out Moviebob's contention that Sony's 1990s success was due them to having luck that would have broke Vegas and not to them actually knowing what they were doing.

I definitely agree that the launch of the PS3 was a disaster, but that is not enough to justify that Sony indeed does not know what they are doing, because I still believe that I know what they are doing for the following reasons:

1: They have a monopoly in all PAL markets (with the exception of the UK, where the Xbox 360 was the largest selling console). This is only due to them understanding that markets outside of Japan and the United States are viable markets as well. No where is this more clear than in Brazil, because Sony released many versions of the same console over there because the next version would always be cheaper. Since they are pretty much the only console company that genuinely cares about those foreign markets they will forever be remembered there. This is mainly reflected in the fact that the FIFA series of sports games comes out on the PS2, but neither on the Gamecube nor the Xbox.

2: They used all their time and effort mainly in the development of consoles that would be more graphically powerful than their competition. You may say that the PS3 had a bad launch, but I doubt that anyone can call it a failure due to the high sales of games such as Uncharted 2: Among Thieves that take advantage of their graphical superiority.

3: They have such ties with indie developers that all other first party companies have almost no good indie companies left that could make games on their respective consoles. This is mainly because Sony started early with the attraction of indie developers on their system, those ties may already go so far back as 2009.

In conclusion: I admit that Sony has done many missteps in its life (releasing the PSP Go as competition to the DSi was just one of the many) but saying that Sony is incompetent in the console gaming business is for me just a step too far. That feels to me like saying that SNK was being idiotic just because they did not market their Neo Geo Pocket series of handhelds well.

1) It is interesting you mention Brazil because Extra Credits in their "Global Games: Brazil" piece covered that market. One of the biggest headaches is contrary to what companies claim piracy is no where near the levels in old markets like the Japan and the United States as it is in new markets. To be fair, Brazil in particular that is due to insane tariffs and import taxes: a $60 piece of software can run between $120 and $160. The pirated version? $5. So there is problem number one. Also you can still buy a brand new Saga genesis down there (or at least when EC made their piece) It certainly didn't help that until very recently Xbox life and PSN might as well not have existed in that country. Then you had the joy of the government rating games... and EVERY game...resulting in a major bottleneck. Then you have the distribution problem as there really wasn't anything even remotely like Gamestop or Steam at the time EC did their piece. So we could have a case where Sony got another streak of luck of being in the right place at the right time as was the case in the 1990s for the US market.

2) Again as Extra Credits pointed out in "Why Console Specs Don't Matter" the market has NOT gone to the console with the best specs. In the 3rd the Saga master system got its clock cleaned by the NES; in the 4th the Neo Geo got whipped by everybody else; the N64 of the 5th generation got its clock cleaned by the PS1; in the 6th the Xbox got its clock cleaned by the PS2, and in the 7th the PS3 was more powerful...if you could use the architecture...something even Sony didn't do all that good a job of and it got its clock cleaned by the Wii; and then we see the 3DS and vita sales...and well there we go again. The success of World of Warcraft in the PC world shows that graphics are not everything; it has and still is cleaning the clock of games with far superior graphics. In fact, the Amiga and the Macintosh had superior graphics to comparatively priced PCs for form the late 1980s through 1990s but got their clocks cleaned by Microsoft and far cheaper PC hardware.

3) Indie developer support is only good if your have a good handle on quality control. Shovel-ware was always a problem in the early console world and the later PC world but if you want to see it go totally off a cliff take a look at Steam; if Steam doesn't get its act together soon people will be making jokes about Steamshovel-ware. If Sony keeps a tight hold it should do well but there is the pressure of 'need more games' which could send things into a tailspin real fast.

1) Thanks, did not know that.
2) I think the title of that Extra Credits episode should have been renamed to "Why Console Specs do not attract the biggest market." because I do not believe that that is entirely true.

Rather true is that:
a) Its in the end the games and not the console itself that brings a console to the man (which is not a problem for Sony because they have lots of support from many video game companies).
b) What rather matters is how great the specs are for the price that you pay for the console (Sony indeed screwed up on it when they released the PS3, but with the PS4 it seems that Sony's risky move in the past turned profitable for them again).

So I will now throw away your argument and say that console specs do matter, no matter in which generation you reside in (except the fifth generation, there is definitely no way to defending that): The atari 2600 was only so successful because they could make original games for that console without hindering the graphical achievement that was previously successfully established with Pong Consoles (unlike the Fairchild Channel F and the RCA Studio 2, which were the 2 Second generation consoles that came before it). The Intellivision could only boast about its sports titles because back then there was no console that could replicate a sport as accurate as the Intellivision did. The Collecovision could only boast about its arcade perfect ports because they were graphically closer to the arcade than any other console could come close at the time. The Famicom was such a major hit in Japan because everyone was impressed by how graphically amazing their arcade perfect ports were, but flopped in Europe because they saw better stuff on the Commodore 64. This is also one of the reasons why the Sega Master System was more successful in Europe, as the people there never had seem something that looked more graphically appealing than what they saw on their Commodore 64's. The Neo Geo found a niche in the elite market (I mean rich people with this) because those rich people needed something for their kid to keep them at home so that they should not play arcades outside simply because they were more graphically powerful and is because of it the leading console in that market, to the point that rich people in Europe imported it from Japan to give to their kids. The Xbox managed to find a market of FPS fanboys because there were no better looking FPS's on the console of the competitors.

Bottom line: Throughout the examples I have given you can clearly see that there exist no way to better advertise a console than to show its console specs. It will never sell a console for you but if you put focus on the games (which was the reason why the Pioneer Laseractive and the RDI Halcyon, the 2 most graphical consoles of their respective generations (3rd and 4th), flopped if you don't consider their price point as an argument) it will be a guarantee that you will have someone to sell it to.

3) I do not know. It is true that Sony always had the best games seeing as how game reviewers on average gave higher reviews on games that came out on the PlayStation series of consoles than on those of any competitor. I however do not know if Sony will keep their untouchable position due to the needs more games pressure. I would have dismissed your argument back in 2005 and before it because we can clearly see that the PS1 and the PS2 had more games than any console of the competitors, but the PS3 got fewer games than the Xbox 360 did. I think the best we can do is wait to see how things will move along. I however would still put quality over quantity, perhaps the CEO of Sony thinks that way too.

2) Ah but that was one of the points of EC's "Why Console Specs Don't Matter" was price point so that was a factor. It also was a point in Moviebob's Game Overthinker V39 "The Emperor Has No Clothes" as one of the reasons the PS3 got it butt handed to it (the other was that its killer game was about a year away from launch and its library was tepid). Their knee jerk reaction to adding motion control messed up Lair (which already had it share of problems) making a bad situation worse.

Moviebob's "The Fate of Nintendo" goes into how the WiiU is having a resulting "meh" in the market and why. He also feels that there is a 50-50 chance that this or the next generation of consoles (Or more accurately end of gaming dedicated consoles with library exclusivity) will likely be the last.

To an extent I think he is right. The low end PC market is following Apple's iMac all-in-one with limited (if any) hardware diversity roadmap (look for "all in one PC" via goggle to see what I mean). This lessens the one key advantage of consoles over the old type of PC--hardware consistency. Throw in smartphone and tablets and the console future gets even bleaker (especially if you figure USB and-or bluetooth can be used to add on controllers the tablet doesn't don't do well emulating)

Extra Credits feels that this is the way things are going as well in their "Consoles Are the New Coin-Op" from 2011 (they add in netbooks to the mix as well).

So you agree with me that Sony has knowledge about the market they are in.

Anyhow, I do not think that this console generation (or the next) is going to be the last because of smartphones, tablets etc.

Microsoft actually indeed thought that the future was only in the smartphone and tablet industry so they made the Xbox One, an all-in-one multimedia machine that barely qualifies as a console. Right now I only see it being successful in the US and the UK (and it may show indeed that the US and UK market will be dominated by multimedia machines).

Meanwhile Sony seems to focus more on games. You clearly see that Sony wants to attract good indie developers, focuses more on solid hardware (4K Resolution) than menu options or gimmicks and does as many advertising as possible to attract actual gamers (reflected in their slogan "This is for the gamers").

Right now Sony is selling more PS4's than Microsoft is selling Xbox One's. This may hint that the assumption that console gaming will die out is untrue.

Actually the success of the PS4 is more the return of the 1990s luck Moviebob was on about. Microsoft's mishandling of the Xbox one hurt them and Nintendo's holding on to the old ways (doing the virtual library like Columbia House rather iTunes really bad move) similarly hurt them. To paraphrase Moviebob "the competition keep messing up and Sony reaped the benefits".

If Sony really knew what they were doing the vita wouldn't be having the problems it is having and they would have cross licensed games from the get go (don't put all your games on one platform, grasshopper). Nintendo is having the issue of watching is casual gamets going to the smartphones and tablets to the point that *they* are kicking around the idea of going into the smartphone market. Think about that; the one company whose experience goes back to the "golden age" of consoles is thinking about going into smartphone development.

It is like if you are saying that Sega got successful with the Sega Genesis because nintendo and NEC screwed up. Arguing that if Sega had any competence at all that the Sega Game Gear would not have the problems it is having.

And right now every console company is believing that the future is in smartphones and tablets. Even Sony who does the exact opposite believes in the death of consoles, but that does not mean that every company will abandon their consoles to go onto smartphones and tablets.

Microsoft already predicted that consoles will not be consoles anymore but multimedia machines before anyone else. Believing that they already made a machine after their philosophy. As you can guess that model is only selling in the US and in the UK. I can believe that in those markets console gaming will die out and that the smartphone and tablet market will be the only markets that will keep having video games but I can not think of any reason why it would die out in any other market.

Well for whatever reason Microsoft is not opening up sales of the Xbox One in some 25 countries (including Japan) until freaking September. Also sometimes you can be too far ahead of the curve; the field-effect transistor was invented in 1925 and again in 1934 but went nowhere due to the technology of the time. QUBE provided pay-per-view programs, special-interest cable television networks, and interactive services in the late 1970s...and bombed badly. It simply was too far ahead of its time.

Being first is not always a good thing.


As for any reason I can think of one: cost. Smartphones, tablets, and netbooks are far cheaper then consoles

 

[Something Amyss]

No. I never defended Sony's cards. I was taking issue with your contention that people who paid more than what you paid for flash memory are getting ripped off.

Which is still garbage.

There are many valid reasons to buy more expensive cards to get the reliability and performance. For example, if you work in video, buying a cheap card could cost you hundred or thousands of dollars because a shot failed or a file became corrupted. Paying a bit extra for quality storage is well worth it if it's important data, and needs to perform under pressure.

Any storage system can become corrupt. You can lose data on any storage system. My prior card, the one this replaced, was significantly more expensive. Oh well, it failed.

I see the "memory is cheap" fallacy all the time when I'm training video production students. They'll go to a discount place and buy the cheapest card available, thinking they got a bargain, and then wonder why it fails. Saying that people who "paid more than X" are suckers just perpetuates this lack of thinking.

Kind of like the correlation=causation fallacy you're promoting.

Or even indicating I'm supporting the notion of the cheapest possible. Because I could go lower in price or off-brand. Of course, you assumed before having the info.

 

[GoddyofAus]

I sincerely hope the Vita is revived at E3, because otherwise, it will go down as one of gaming's greatest tragedies alongside the Dreamcast. A truly great system whose potential is being squandered.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

Or even indicating I'm supporting the notion of the cheapest possible. Because I could go lower in price or off-brand. Of course, you assumed before having the info.

I did not need to assume, because you provided all of the information necessary.

You said that "anybody who pays more than X" has been ripped off. Therefore proving that you link quality to price.

 

[Vicioussama]

You know, it pissed me off that when Sony first announced the vita they announced a plan to have you trade in old UMDs from the PSP to be a digital copy so you can play it on your Vita or PSP. Instead they removed that and made it Japan only, telling us to "buy it again on the PSN store" basically. That pissed me off so much.

I really don't get why Sony isn't investing more into the PS Vita either.

You know I wondered about that. I remember putting off a Vita purchase when a clerk in my favourite game store told me this was in the plans. Seems like a completely shitty thing to do, but then why court us dirty foreigners with our dirty foreign money? Not like there's any money to be made in the long run.. oh wait.

By the by, I came back from Japan a couple of weeks ago. You wouldn't believe the amount of games unreleased outside of Japan, PSP and PS Vita. Granted, a lot of them were dating sims and/or visual novels, but I'd love to play those as well. In the end I picked up 3 Japan-exclusive titles of which two are fucking Tales games. You can't tell me those wouldn't sell outside of Nihon-hoku!

And all the other games I never even knew existed but would give a proverbial left nut to play. I almost burst out in tears in the store.

Seriously, Sony. Get a fucking clue.

Ya, I think Sony has some REALLY bad decision makers in the Vita/PSP area of their company. Either they are very racist/xenophobic (wouldn't surprise me tbh), or they are complete idiots about the power of the market. As stupid as SE who thought a traditional RPG wouldn't sell well and now they see the HUGE success of Bravely Default in the western market and had to put a statement out admitting their idiocy.

 

[mew4ever23]

Talking about Sony and Crash Bandicoot, why did they toss him in a ditch? Sure Wrath of Cortex wasn't the best, but why abandon him?

They never owned him. Crash was Universal's property. Universal was sold to Vivendi, which was sold to Activision, the current owners who are doing fucking nothing with him.

The Crash Bandicoot video game trademark is dead. It's been given to Bank of America. Looks like Activision stopped paying for it. The only still living trademark is on the merchandise.

http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=tm&qt=sno&reel=&frame=&sno=75179576
http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4810:8e6j49.2.2

 

[Vicioussama]

It really is a shame. I just got the Vita a few weeks ago to play persona 4 golden (this happened a little before they announced persona 4 will be available on psn) and Im amazed at just how beautiful things look on it and Ive been trying to find more stuff for it because it really is a useful machine but Im not finding much. It's a really impressive piece of tech but it needs more software to really take off

I have a Vita as well, sharing the same concerns, but now I simply have too many games for the vita. I love every single one of them. here's the list:

- Playstation allstars: Battle royale - super smash brother with playstation characters, very well executed.
- Modnation Racers - Kart racer with custom carts as well as tracks, a rare combination
- Tearaway - cute 3D platformer set in a world made entirely of paper. Uses all of the features of the vita very well.
- LittleBigPlanet Vita - 2.5D platformer with custom levels
- Final Fantasy X - JRPG with a nice story, voice-acting, interesting optional bosses, nice combat system.
- Final Fantasy X-2 - A more light-hearted story, but an arguably better combat system, very fun to play.
- Gravity Rush - An interesting action adventure where you can manipulate gravity
- Killzone Mercenary - The first FPS game on a handheld that is actually good, nice online multiplayer.
- Soul Sacrifice - A sort of monster hunter/Dark souls, with very interesting spells.
- Dragon's Crown - A very cool side scrolling brawler, with varied classes, hidden paths, a full item and leveling system
- The jak and Daxter trilogy - Very cool action platformers, focused on exploration.
- Dead or Alive 5+ - A very deep Fighter, Looks very good.
- Mortal Kombat - Less deep than DOA, but it's a lot easier to pick up and play. Plus Fatalities.

So yeah, for me personally, I don't have any troubles finding games for it.

I refuse to buy FFX HD cause of the stupid greed of SE >.> not having cross buy, yet having cross play? Such an obvious ploy to get more money outta fans. That greed is dickish. And then add onto the fact FFX-2 HD is only a download, not its own cartridge? Taking up precious space on our cards. God I hate SE.... I used to love that company, but man, their greed is ridiculous.

AS for Soul Sacrfice, it's not at ALL like a Souls game lol. Not even close. It's pure monster hunter, just dark fantasy monster hunter. But it is a great game.

b) What rather matters is how great the specs are for the price that you pay for the console (Sony indeed screwed up on it when they released the PS3, but with the PS4 it seems that Sony's risky move in the past turned profitable for them again).

The PS3 was only so expensive on its release (which was sold at a loss for the time, same as PS4 and PS2 on release) because it was basically the PS3 hardware + a PS2. That was all so they could have true backwards compatibility. People shit all over them for that and now they refuse to bother with true backwards compatibility -_- thanks, assholes who complained.

I mean, if they made a PS4 that had the PS3 hardware so we could play PS3 games on our PS4, I'd have bought it on release even if it did cost a bit more. But even so, there's NO excuse fort hem to not have PS1 and PS2 support on the PS4. we have PS1 and PS2 emulation via software on our PCs and PS4 is using the same architecture as a PC. Hell, we know for a fact they already have PS1 software emulation because both the PS2 and PS3 had that. PS2 backwards compatibility was hardware in early PS3s, but they said they were working on software emulation that never came out. Considering third party fans created PS2 emulation on PC, there's no excuse for PS4 not having at least PS1 and PS2 backwards compatibility. And yes, I'd make use of them from time to time. More so if it had PS3 emulation, but there's at least real technical reasons software emulation for that is far harder and unlikely. But, again, I'd be fine with a PS4 version being sold at a higher price with PS3 hardware to play PS3 games. I don't get why they release only ONE version of a console on release. Bring a choice for the people. With pre-orders, they'd have a much easier time knowing the manufacture costs so they can keep those down and not over produce, under sell, and minimize their losses.

 

[hydrolythe]

It really is a shame. I just got the Vita a few weeks ago to play persona 4 golden (this happened a little before they announced persona 4 will be available on psn) and Im amazed at just how beautiful things look on it and Ive been trying to find more stuff for it because it really is a useful machine but Im not finding much. It's a really impressive piece of tech but it needs more software to really take off

I have a Vita as well, sharing the same concerns, but now I simply have too many games for the vita. I love every single one of them. here's the list:

- Playstation allstars: Battle royale - super smash brother with playstation characters, very well executed.
- Modnation Racers - Kart racer with custom carts as well as tracks, a rare combination
- Tearaway - cute 3D platformer set in a world made entirely of paper. Uses all of the features of the vita very well.
- LittleBigPlanet Vita - 2.5D platformer with custom levels
- Final Fantasy X - JRPG with a nice story, voice-acting, interesting optional bosses, nice combat system.
- Final Fantasy X-2 - A more light-hearted story, but an arguably better combat system, very fun to play.
- Gravity Rush - An interesting action adventure where you can manipulate gravity
- Killzone Mercenary - The first FPS game on a handheld that is actually good, nice online multiplayer.
- Soul Sacrifice - A sort of monster hunter/Dark souls, with very interesting spells.
- Dragon's Crown - A very cool side scrolling brawler, with varied classes, hidden paths, a full item and leveling system
- The jak and Daxter trilogy - Very cool action platformers, focused on exploration.
- Dead or Alive 5+ - A very deep Fighter, Looks very good.
- Mortal Kombat - Less deep than DOA, but it's a lot easier to pick up and play. Plus Fatalities.

So yeah, for me personally, I don't have any troubles finding games for it.

I refuse to buy FFX HD cause of the stupid greed of SE >.> not having cross buy, yet having cross play? Such an obvious ploy to get more money outta fans. That greed is dickish. And then add onto the fact FFX-2 HD is only a download, not its own cartridge? Taking up precious space on our cards. God I hate SE.... I used to love that company, but man, their greed is ridiculous.

AS for Soul Sacrfice, it's not at ALL like a Souls game lol. Not even close. It's pure monster hunter, just dark fantasy monster hunter. But it is a great game.

b) What rather matters is how great the specs are for the price that you pay for the console (Sony indeed screwed up on it when they released the PS3, but with the PS4 it seems that Sony's risky move in the past turned profitable for them again).

The PS3 was only so expensive on its release (which was sold at a loss for the time, same as PS4 and PS2 on release) because it was basically the PS3 hardware + a PS2. That was all so they could have true backwards compatibility. People shit all over them for that and now they refuse to bother with true backwards compatibility -_- thanks, assholes who complained.

I mean, if they made a PS4 that had the PS3 hardware so we could play PS3 games on our PS4, I'd have bought it on release even if it did cost a bit more. But even so, there's NO excuse fort hem to not have PS1 and PS2 support on the PS4. we have PS1 and PS2 emulation via software on our PCs and PS4 is using the same architecture as a PC. Hell, we know for a fact they already have PS1 software emulation because both the PS2 and PS3 had that. PS2 backwards compatibility was hardware in early PS3s, but they said they were working on software emulation that never came out. Considering third party fans created PS2 emulation on PC, there's no excuse for PS4 not having at least PS1 and PS2 backwards compatibility. And yes, I'd make use of them from time to time. More so if it had PS3 emulation, but there's at least real technical reasons software emulation for that is far harder and unlikely. But, again, I'd be fine with a PS4 version being sold at a higher price with PS3 hardware to play PS3 games. I don't get why they release only ONE version of a console on release. Bring a choice for the people. With pre-orders, they'd have a much easier time knowing the manufacture costs so they can keep those down and not over produce, under sell, and minimize their losses.

I do not think that you seem to understand. What I wanted to tell is that I think that Sony made a risk when they made a contract to make sure they would have more powerful graphics than their competitors (one of the reasons for the high price of the PS3) but that in the end that risk paid off.