Poll: Sony Pulls Out of the Console Race

[nighthawk282]

That's fine, but the sweeping generalizations and oversimplified explanations to them like "good", "better", "bad", "fun" and "not fun", I'm inclined to think that this is nothing more than nostalgia, or a severe case of closed-mindedness.

Tends to be a little bit of both, in my experience. There's nothing wrong with liking the 16-bit era. Hell, I still go back and play a lot of those games too. Some are great, some not so good, but I could say the same thing about current generation games. A return to the 16-bit wouldn't automatically entail better games. Just a lot of empty disc space, unless the games were absolutely massive.

As for Sony, they aren't pulling out just yet. In their eyes, the Vita is doing well, and they're hoping for a bump in the numbers once it's finally seen a worldwide release. Kaz is Sony's president now, and if anything, he'll at least comprehend the gap between east and west, something I think Sony has been at odds with for a long time. Now, if the next console generation were to see Sony flop, like a lot of people claim they've done this time (which I would argue fervently), then perhaps they'd pull out of the race. Because if that were their choice, they'd still make money off of their other products, but loss of revenue from the gaming market would hurt them like hell.

 

[Steampunk Viking]

I've made no cover ups... I hate Sony as a company.

Having said that, if Nintendo's Wii U doesn't live up to be the gaming console they've been promising it to be, this would be very bad since, as much as I love my XBox, Sony have been keeping Microsoft on a leash as their rivals.

It's a hard thing to comment on, really.

Having said that, if this rumour is true in any fashion, it may not be that Sony are pulling out of the console race, but rather they may market the PS3 as being a console that outlived it's rivals and are just not making a new console. May not be a bad move on Sony's part if that's the case.

*Swallows pride and it tastes bitter*

 

[The_Merchant]

Lack of announced information=/= exclusion from the console race

that and the video game market is one of sonys biggest money source,they sure wont deny that one

 

[jboking]

By the end of the first quarter this year Sony will over take Microsoft, which means that by the time the rumored release of the next xbox comes out (holiday 2013) the PS3 will likely be 5-10 million units ahead. If Xbox's statements are to be believed, and the next Xbox will come out in holiday 2014 (which is also my bet) we're talking about a 10-20 million unit lead for the PS3.

EDIT: Upon rereading some articles, I've come back to say that my numbers are a bit off. Still, given the percentage increase of PS3 sales over the last three years, Sony is set to over take Microsoft in the next year or so, and neither will ever beat the wii this generation.

What I'm working off of in my post is information that I have defined as of this moment. It is fine to say that the PS3 will overtake the 360 by the end of the year, but it isn't something you can confirm. Added to this, you might consider that the PS3 was projected to overtake the 360 in 2011, and that didn't happen. Either way, just a thought exercise really. Just imagine what the video game world would be like with Sony gone.

 

[jboking]

There has been a lot of rumors circulating about one of the big three console companies dropping out of the console race next generation.

No, there have not been "a lot" of rumors. There's been one rumor originated by one guy who makes iphone games and thus has a vested interest in the console market going bye bye. That rumor was based on the possibility that a new console will not be announced at E3 this year; that's a long stretch of logic to assume that means no consoles will be made ever again. It is irresponsible to makes this sound like it has any veracity to it what-so-ever.

Okay, "a lot" was a stylistic mistake, it wasn't meant to mislead. Also, the very sense of a rumor is that it has no veracity. What we would call this thread is a thought exercise. Try and imagine a world where Sony pulled out of the market. However, if you are too caught up by the "BUT THAT WON'T HAPPEN!!1!!" of it all, feel free to not bother.

 

[Torrasque]

I am looking forward to the Wii U and next generation of Mario/Metroid/Zelda games. I enjoy them far more than I enjoy a great deal of xbox games. I don't want to break my controller when the game is being fucking stupid as hell for no reason at all, when I play my Nintendo games (literally any Nintendo game I play). There may be times when the AI is frustratingly difficult or I get bad luck, but I've never had a moment in a Nintendo game where the game is literally designed to make you lose for the sake of "fare-ness".

I enjoy my xbox, but I am still a Nintendo fan. It'd be amusing to see Sony drop out of the console race, but I seriously doubt they will.
And yeah, Microsoft with a monopoly? That would be a verifiable clusterfuck of shit assery.

 

[Torrasque]

*snip*

Remember when we all used to play games because they were fun?
Before there were leaderboards, achievements, gamerscore, trophies, prestige, unlockables, etc. we all played games because they were fun to play. Nowadays when I fire up MW3 I ask myself, "is this even fun?" and it might be for a while. But when the game starts to get fucking stupid with laggy hosts who go 28/2 or sniper frog, or the same douchebag that uses a modded controller with an MK14, then I just turn off my xbox or play a different game.

I still sometimes get the urge to play Fire Emblem on my DS or Ogre Battle 64. Why? Because the game is fun!
I had fun playing Runescape before I got into WoW and I'd still play Runescape now (the game is really fun) if it wasn't so incredibly grindy that it reminds me of boring times in WoW. It is really sad when I'd rather play super basic flash games on addictinggames or newgrounds over my "top of the line, best graphics ever, hyper realism" games that are brand fucking new.

I'd kill to have a game that looked decent to alright that had a killer plot and fantastic gameplay.
I don't give a fuck about how good the foliage looks if the characters have back stories like piss and the gameplay is just another recycled game from the 90s.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

I think you are far too optimistic about extra processing power. Yes those graphics are nice but that will be the focus and not in the other which at the moment is sorely needed. For example, we could be doing more to push dedicated servers and 64+ man games on console for FPS games. Don't bother citing examples I know they exist but they need to exist in greater volume. Let's just hope at t he very and utmost least the former catches on and P2P in FPS games on consoles will die a horrible death and suffer for eternity in idea hell. In my opinion P2P has no place in these games.

This would be something worth buying a new console gen over.

In which way am I far too optimistic? Frankly, I'd be surprised if graphics technology on the level of the Unreal Engine 3 Demo ever reaches the general audience on a grand scale. I'm a pessimist like that, but I'll be happy if proven wrong, and certainly even the slightest possibility of this happening is exciting to me.

And yes, I did say the new generation would allow the games to go bigger, which does include multi-player FPS games. It's one of the many new prospects.

You are too optimistic that you think the new power will be used for anything other than the cheap thrill of better graphics. While graphics can be good and will be better at the moment they are focused on too much to the detriment of other parts and that is the way I think you are too optimistic about a new gen.

That is how they should be used but that is also how I doubt they will be used.

 

[somonels]

I don't support anything that helps M?. Also the OP is wrong: PS3 - hardcore, MSC - frat/casual, Wii - niche.

 

[Panayjon]

As a PC gamer I chose, "Great!" because I'd love it if the only other alternative was an open system instead of three closed systems.

Besides, with PCs getting easier to use (I haven't actually had to install a single driver since I got Win 7) and consoles growing more features and involving more complications they're practically on a collision course to be the same thing anyways down the line.

 

[jboking]

Playstation Vita.
Wait, fuck, that invokes mod wrath.

How...exactly?

What I meant to say is that Sony cannot be completely out of the console race this genration, because their Playstation Vita is a console. A stupid console, but a console nonetheless.
And it has Katamari and Lumines games. Squee...!

Actually, that puts Sony in the handheld market, not the console market. It's kind of how most don't consider the Nintendo DS to be part of this generation of consoles, but rather of this generation of handhelds. It is also why we didn't declare the next generation of handhelds when the 3DS came out.

 

[GonzoGamer]

seeing as i have already with drawn from this console generation and pretty much gone PC, it would change nothing for me.

Same here.
The big difference I can see is that others (I've already decided I'm not getting a console next gen) will no longer have to decide between a console with crappy hardware OR crappy support but will just have to get the one with the crappy hardware.

Personally, I don't think OP is too far off; just look at how few ps3s have sold compared to the ps2 when it was as old. I've been buying Sony consoles and with the support that the psp, the ps3 and the psp2 (probably will) get leads me to think that Sony is trying to crash the playstation brand into the mountain. After they took out OtherOS & had that PSN meltdown, I really thought the PS3 was going to Dreamcast it for them. It's bad enough that the third parties have provided extremely poor support for the ps3 but Sony can't even keep the firmware up to snuff. The last big update (4.0) was just to promote the Vita and had nothing for those of us who don't care about it. It's pretty obvious that the Vita will probably also lose more features than it gets but I'm not going to stick around to find out.
I loved the ps2, but since then, it's been one big expensive ride downhill and all my friends got fed up with it way before me.

Between what the platform developers feel like they can get away with and the game developers chopping up their games into a $60 release and who knows how much dlc, I'm sticking with the pc next generation and I'm going to wait for GOTYs.

I just want to play video games, I don't want to be involved in these games of "how much will the gamers let us get away with."

 

[rcs619]

It's not just graphics that need extra processing, it's things like physics and more importantly, AI. If a new console generation means AI that is more interesting to play against, then I'm down.

If things keep going like they're going, nex-gen games are gonna cost $69.99 (or possibly more)and take even longer to make. Adding in more dev-time and forcing devs and producers to sink more money into a game just to make it is bad for everyone. Less experimentation, less new IPs, more "safe games" and more of a barrier for smaller studios to get involved.

Part of the reason big publishers like EA and Activision have become so vast and so powerful is because of how expensive games are to make. They help with funding and advertising, because flopping on a modern mainstream game could potentially ruin its developers.

If things keep going the way they are, this is probably my last console generation, personally. I'm not paying $70+ dollars for a 4-8 hour game, or a game that is released incomplete, or with locked content on the disk that I'm forced to pay even more for later. The only game I have ever put down above $59.99 on is the Mass Effect 3 special edition, and that is only because I love the series, and because I felt the content was worth the value.

 

[jboking]

Ok then. two things:

I don't ever remember reading that the PS3 would over take it in 2011. I read that 2011 would be the year the PS3 began to rise, signaling in its eventual domination between it and the 360 (which this did happen), but not that it would succeed.

It was suggested then in much the same way it is suggested now. Sony is catching up, they have a better software line-up(read: More Exclusives), they have a good chance of overtaking Microsoft. Same thing is being said about 2012. Sony is catching up, they have a better software line-up(read: More exclusives) and they have a good chance of overtaking Microsoft.

Either way, this entire thread was based around the rumor that one would drop out. MS has been leaking info about their next project, Nintendo has already announced theirs, but Sony has said they won't be announcing anything. The implication is that, as of right now, Sony isn't looking towards the next console generation, whether they are selling more or not.

At any rate, I sincerely feel the video game world would be worse off. In terms of video game narratives, Sony has been far more at the forefront than Microsoft. Also, competition is a good thing, and while many 360 players may not admit it (or might not be aware of it), several of the "innovations" found on the 360 were actually concepts presented by Sony first, and then taken by Microsoft. These are things such as Netflix, hulu, etc.

Likewise, Sony has taken things from microsoft. But the point is that they make eachother better. "Iron sharpens iron" type of thing.

Completely agreed

If you asked me "What would it be like if Microsoft dropped out" (which I would consider far more likely given the fact that one's a software giant, the other a hardware giant) I'd say the same thing.

With this, I don't know for sure if I agree. The reason is that we have seen the kind of tomfoolery that Microsoft gets into when they have a monopoly. We don't yet know what would happen with Sony in that situation. It could also be argued that without competition they could release more innovative things with their hardware without fear of backlash from another company. That isn't to say that competition isn't good or that iron doesn't sharpen iron, it is just a point to consider.

 

[AgentCooper]

How about Sony knowing they lost exclusives to the competition and funded and bought out other developers to crank out AAA exclusive titles?

Buying-out exclusives that would have otherwise been multi-platform isn't something that I'd call good for the gaming industry. It falls back into the Bluray issue where it's less Sony doing something for gaming, and more just Sony doing something to help themselves.

How about being pioneers in the Rhythm and Music Games genre?

Didn't Konami make DDR? And Activision made Guitar Hero. So while I'll admit that my knowledge of that particular genre is limited (mostly because I rarely play them), those are the two titles I tend to think of when I think of "pioneering rhythm and music games".

Or how about not charging for the PSN network?

Because they couldn't. Not literally, of course. They could have charged if they really wanted to, but they knew that it would have been a bad idea. Think about it, when the large majority of your target audience is already shelling-out $50 a year for a service with a competitor, how many of them do you think are going to be willing to shell-out even more for a newer service that they aren't fully sure of? Heck, this is something that MMOs learned long time ago. You think MMOs are going free-to-play because they're good people? No, because free-to-play with ads in the games are the only ways that most people will try/play a second MMO.

Same goes with Sony. Making PSN free was the only way to ensure that people even acknowledged it. It wasn't a good-natured moved on Sony's part, it was a defensive move in response to XBLA having already beaten them to the punch. PSN would have been a paid service if XBLA wasn't there already.

Sony has done a lot for the gaming world regardless if you like Sony or not.

Still not seeing it. Of your three examples, one is a case of them doing the opposite of good, one is a case that's gonna need explanation if its true, and the other is a case of their hands being tied.

You are really grasping at straws here and you are so one sided I really don't see a point in arguing with you anymore.

I brought great examples to the table and you refuse to acknowledge. Not sure what kind of bubble you are living in.

 

[Savagezion]

Edit: Probably worth saying at this point that I understand it is unlikely that Sony would pull out. think of this as a thought exercise. What would you do if it were to come true?

I would probably not be a part of console gaming for a generation or two until I was certain Microsoft values the hardware end of the game. Microsoft always goes cheap on manufacturer contracts signing deals with the lowest bid. One of the richest companies in the world and they won't pay to make a electronic with good hardware. This doesn't just attribute to the 360. Windows phone failed to compete because they were crap phones made in Samsungs basement to be able to budget the cheap ass contract that they made with Microsoft to get the winning bid. Microsoft doesn't value quality hardware. I like Microsoft, but they make so much garbage I ain't willing to pay upfront for anything hardware related released by them.
Nintendo, they don't market for me so I wouldn't stand much to gain through them. Thus, I would retreat back to exclusive PC gaming if Sony dropped out and cross my fingers for Sony to support the PC with its titles.

 

[Quiotu]

*snip*

Remember when we all used to play games because they were fun?
Before there were leaderboards, achievements, gamerscore, trophies, prestige, unlockables, etc. we all played games because they were fun to play. Nowadays when I fire up MW3 I ask myself, "is this even fun?" and it might be for a while. But when the game starts to get fucking stupid with laggy hosts who go 28/2 or sniper frog, or the same douchebag that uses a modded controller with an MK14, then I just turn off my xbox or play a different game.

I still sometimes get the urge to play Fire Emblem on my DS or Ogre Battle 64. Why? Because the game is fun!
I had fun playing Runescape before I got into WoW and I'd still play Runescape now (the game is really fun) if it wasn't so incredibly grindy that it reminds me of boring times in WoW. It is really sad when I'd rather play super basic flash games on addictinggames or newgrounds over my "top of the line, best graphics ever, hyper realism" games that are brand fucking new.

I'd kill to have a game that looked decent to alright that had a killer plot and fantastic gameplay.
I don't give a fuck about how good the foliage looks if the characters have back stories like piss and the gameplay is just another recycled game from the 90s.

I think you're overgeneralizing. For every CoD, there's a Mass Effect. I think there's games out there specifically catered to people who want to play competitively online, others that want to co-op, and yes there's still plenty of single player experiences out there. Mass Effect 2, Bioshock, the Uncharted games, Catherine, Assassin's Creed, GTA4... I had a lot of fun with these games, and I don't particularly care about online or trophies or even DLC.

You don't have to like EVERY game, or every feature, or every genre. But the online capabilities of consoles lately has given us more diversity in games, and that's a good thing as long as what you like is still out there. Only a few genres have really suffered lately, and that's mostly due to PC games suffering (RTS, flight/space sim). CoD and Battlefield are around because they're popular, people play them... and you disliking that kind of game doesn't stop them being a viable product. I don't mind those games being around as long as I still have games like Witcher 2 and Deus Ex to play, and neither should you.

 

[WhiteTigerShiro]

You are really grasping at straws here and you are so one sided I really don't see a point in arguing with you anymore.

I brought great examples to the table and you refuse to acknowledge. Not sure what kind of bubble you are living in.

Yeah, you brought three examples, I explained how I'm not convinced by them, and you're just giving up. All that does is re-affirm my point. Explain to me how buying exclusives helps the industry, tell me about how Sony pioneered in the rhythm and music genres when outward appearances make it seem like 3rd parties did it. As for PSN, it's kind of a wash. Sure, it's nice having a free online service, but at the same time I can't really imagine how Sony had any choice BUT to make it free. It's really down to speculation at that point; you might think they would have made it free anyway, I think they would have charged if Microsoft hadn't beaten them to it. Only one who can really say for sure on that is Sony themselves.

 

[Lunar Templar]

I just want to play video games, I don't want to be involved in these games of "how much will the gamers let us get away with."

like removing reverse compatibility so they can charge again for games we already own.
yes Soul Reaver was good, -.- no, i don't want to pay you again so i can play it, i OWN THE DISK.

that was one of the things that pissed me off, still have my PS2, my PS3, pawn shop. not to mention all the 'day 1 dlc' or 'online passes'. yeah, um, no, i want to just PLAY the game, not plug it in and WAIT while shit i shouldn't have had to down load, downloads -.-

 

[Varanfan9]

Won't effect me as I play Nintendo and computer games. So I guess bad for everyone else but I will be fine.