SCEE President: Sony Needs To "Suffer"

[Aries_Split]

I've looked at the ps3's stuff, and I rather like the way it looks. The dashboard UI alone has a very calming feel to it, unfortunatley it doesn't have the huge game selection I want. Even for the games I do want that are on it I can easily just buy them for 360.

Sadly though I will be buying in the far future when god of war 3 comes out....rat bastards making it a ps3 exclusive. One can only hope they will have a change of heart and give 360 a slice of the pie so I don't waste money on a system for one game....

EDIT Yes, I'm a diehard GoW fanboy

So Sony Computer Entertainment Santa Monica (the people who make the series) should give a game whose rights Sony owns completely to the 360, despite the fact that it would mean doubling their workload or signifigantly scaling back their ambition?

You realize that the 360 and PS3 are even in terms of power

No, no they're not. You need proof? Lets take another look at Killzone 2. While they may have been similar in terms of output before, now we are seeing the difference - remember that Killzone 2 is barely over half of its possible power, and beats the crap out of the full capabilities of the 360 (based on quotes from Guerilla and Epic, respectively).

If Santa Monica wanted to really make the best game possible, they would make it on a PC. There is no argument to this,

Yes, yes there is. The game is an action heavy hack and slash, the best of its kind bar none. This does not now, nor will ever, belong on a PC - it is purely console territory, requiring a controller over a keyboard to better pull off combos, sticks over a mouse for character direction and rolls, and a couch to sit on.

If only there was a place to plug in a controller...

And Indigo, no matter what Sony is telling you, look at the HARDWARE. The PS3 is running on the equivalent of a 7800GTX Ultra, they even share the same chip set. The 360 is running on just about the same thing. Look at Gears of War 2, it looks just as good as Killzone, both of which are demolished by something like Crysis.

 

[SmugFrog]

Good deal then! If Sony has truly learned so much from Nintendo and Microsoft, perhaps the Playstation 4 will be one hell of a "must-have" console.

Argh! I read the title, didn't realise what SCEE was and thought some mad CEO of an obscure company was doing an Emperor, all hunched over in black cloaks going "I want to see... suffering."

Glad I wasn't alone in that...

 

[TsunamiWombat]

No offense skippy but why does it matter? I've gamed happily on a PC made of hamsters and glue for 5 years. I'm tired about hearing about how OMGWTF powerful PS3 is, because it 1. Costs a ton of time and money to create a game that uses all that horse power, 2. is not having these games that are OMGWTF pretty being made for it, 3. is still inferior to a modern PC, as Eggo is always happy to point out.

 

[Aries_Split]

I've looked at the ps3's stuff, and I rather like the way it looks. The dashboard UI alone has a very calming feel to it, unfortunatley it doesn't have the huge game selection I want. Even for the games I do want that are on it I can easily just buy them for 360.

Sadly though I will be buying in the far future when god of war 3 comes out....rat bastards making it a ps3 exclusive. One can only hope they will have a change of heart and give 360 a slice of the pie so I don't waste money on a system for one game....

EDIT Yes, I'm a diehard GoW fanboy

So Sony Computer Entertainment Santa Monica (the people who make the series) should give a game whose rights Sony owns completely to the 360, despite the fact that it would mean doubling their workload or signifigantly scaling back their ambition?

You realize that the 360 and PS3 are even in terms of power

No, no they're not. You need proof? Lets take another look at Killzone 2. While they may have been similar in terms of output before, now we are seeing the difference - remember that Killzone 2 is barely over half of its possible power, and beats the crap out of the full capabilities of the 360 (based on quotes from Guerilla and Epic, respectively).

If Santa Monica wanted to really make the best game possible, they would make it on a PC. There is no argument to this,

Yes, yes there is. The game is an action heavy hack and slash, the best of its kind bar none. This does not now, nor will ever, belong on a PC - it is purely console territory, requiring a controller over a keyboard to better pull off combos, sticks over a mouse for character direction and rolls, and a couch to sit on.

If only there was a place to plug in a controller...

And Indigo, no matter what Sony is telling you, look at the HARDWARE. The PS3 is running on the equivalent of a 7800GTX Ultra, they even share the same chip set. The 360 is running on just about the same thing. Look at Gears of War 2, it looks just as good as Killzone, both of which are demolished by something like Crysis.

Epic say that Gears of War 2 was the full extent of the 360's capabilities. Guerilla say that Killzone 2 uses 60% of the Ps3's GPU. Reviewers say that Killzone 2 makes Gears of War II look like crap. Either they're all lying, or you, a random poster on the internet, are incorrect.

And no, we're not discussing peripherals, we're looking at it with the PC using a mouse and keyboard - designing a game around the assumption that the consumer base will buy a peripheral they won't need again is bad form to begin with. (Yes, there are exceptions, however these are for the purpose of immersion and fantasy fulfillment - a controller doesn't feel sufficiently like the blades to make it practical in that sense, and a controller that looks like said blades wouold be highly impractical)

Alright, I'll concede. The 360 is less powerful than a PS3, but a Mid Range Gaming PC will demolish either of them. Also, the thing about the periphials? Rock Band.

 

[shatnershaman]

I'm still actually trying to find a real justification for the PSP's continued existence.

http://www.metacritic.com/games/psp/scores/

Now depending on your standards that is 64(80+)-187(70+) reasons.

While you can argue about the PS3's "suffering" sales but the PSP's is obvious, Sony had already made it DOA with the lack of games for the system.

it's got all the games you want

For me anyway, this is where he lost his creditability.

 

[Reaperman Wompa]

I was hoping this would be a challenge from a 360 fanboy or something to fight Some Sony Reps in a cage match.

And it's a recession, what do they expect?

 

[ElTigreNegro]

All this suffering is their own damn fault for making all the wrong decisions. I just hope the damn thing will live trough the entire generation, because i spend plenty of money on it to see it die halfway trough.

 

[Brett Alex]

im not implying it im flat out SAYING it. the point YOU miss is that blu-ray ISNT a selling point for the one group of people that matters most, the CUSTOMER.

Uh huh. Can you, uh, can you even consider the logistics of removing blu-ray players from all upcoming PS3s? Seriously? The logistics alone, never mind PR and compatibly issues.

Anyway, blu-ray gave me Metal Gear Solid 4, ergo, Blu-Ray is useful.

 

[Darkong]

The whole "you get what you pay for" argument regarding the PS3 is actually one of the things that has put me off buying one. Yes it has a lot of extra multi-media features, but I personally don't want those. I just want a games console, that plays games, and for me, that is where the PS3 comes unstuck. There is only one game it has that I'm interested in (Little BigPlanet) and all others I'd want are available on the PC and/or Xbox 360.

This is the crux of why Sony's pricing policy and claims that people are buying potential have blown up in their faces. I'd bet I'm not the only person who just wants a games consoel and doesn't necessarrily want to pay for all the extra bells and whistles that the PS3 offers, not to mention that I'd never pay that much for a games console anyway, I don't have the luxury of having that much disposable income.

Ultimately I think that Sony has forgotten (or maybe never realised) why their previous consoles dominated the market in the way that they did, despite being, technically, the weaker of the machines. They ruled the roost because of the casual gamer market and the casual gamer simply does not care about the processing capabilities of your CPU or about the new storage format you're using, they just care about the experience they'll get and what it'll cost. These casual gamers have now moved largely to the Wii and Xbox 360 (depending age and taste in games) and getting them back will not be an easy task for Sony, certainly it will be impossible until the PS3 price comes down significantly.

 

[Wyatt]

But that's my point, you WON'T be shelling out thousands of dollars for these in a few years. Prices fall, Blu-Ray needs to seep into the market and find its equilibrium price, and the market will oblige and move on.

well unless they put in some kind of swap program that allows me to trade in my DVDs for blu-ray disks than ill be paying thousands of dollers to replace my current movies. i dont care if the price of Blu-ray movies drop to $10 a pop thats still 200 movies X $10 in replacment costs. something that the 'improvment' in quality that blu-ray offers over DVD just isnt worth.

its not even worth the cost of buying the player or the TV at this point and wont be no matter HOW much the price drops untill the day that the TVs are $300 and the players are $100 tops, but when THAT day gets here their will be a whole NEW generation of hardware that you 'must have' instead. there is a term for this you know its called 'planned obsolescence'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence go read that link it explanes my point i great detail.

now if that hooker teleportation thing ever comes to life than i may rethink, till then its a blatiant money grab trying to force hardware upgrades for minimal improvments. if you want my $3,000 or $4,000 to upgrade (and thats taking into account a price drop for marketing forces) you better be offereing a damn sight more than a small improvment in picture quality.

Uh huh. Can you, uh, can you even consider the logistics of removing blu-ray players from all upcoming PS3s? Seriously? The logistics alone, never mind PR and compatibly issues.

Anyway, blu-ray gave me Metal Gear Solid 4, ergo, Blu-Ray is useful.

can you concider the logistics of loosing an entire consol cycle war if they DONT? metal gear solid might be worth an extra $200 for YOU but its obviously not for the majority of average consumers. and the truth is you cant compeat on a large scale like Sony is trying to do if your game plan is based around trying to sucker enough people into spending an extra $200 for a single game. or even 4 or 5 titles.

the logic is inescapable, sony is in last place and its the cost of their machine that put them there, that cost is a DIRECT result of the blu-ray player. they can either continue on and just write off this whole generation or they can make a change and catch up. personaly i dont care what they do but if they keep the blu-ray and the extra $200 that gos with it on an allreay to my mind overpriced system than they wont have MY busiess. than again the X-box wont be at THEIR price range either. the reward just isnt worth the cost when PCs can do much much much more for alot less and a single title or two doesnt change that economic picture for me at all.

 

[Jumplion]

The whole "you get what you pay for" argument regarding the PS3 is actually one of the things that has put me off buying one. Yes it has a lot of extra multi-media features, but I personally don't want those. I just want a games console, that plays games, and for me, that is where the PS3 comes unstuck. There is only one game it has that I'm interested in (Little BigPlanet) and all others I'd want are available on the PC and/or Xbox 360.

Okay, why do people list off the extra multi-media features of the PS3 as if it's detrimental to the PS3? You people say it like "It has multi-media features, so therefore it gets -10 points and I don't want it because it does other stuff." and I don't get that mentality of some people who say that.

If it has the games you want, then get one, but don't go on complaining "I don't want it to have multimedia capabilities!" like having multiuse is a bad thing! If you don't want it to play music, guess what, you don't have to make it play music! If you just want to use it to play games? Use it to play games!

Stop complaining "I want a games console, not a multimedia hub!" when you do want a multimedia hub. You don't have to use the media side of multimedia, just use it to play games, stop being ignorant and wanting less of what you payed.

And thanks for making "Philosophical comment of why Sony is where it's at now" #17444358383, your gift bag is waiting for you.

(sorry if I sound bashful, I didn't intend to insult you or anything)

 

[Wyatt]

could it be because *gasp* all that 'extra' stuff is coming at a price? its not like the multi-media options or the Blu-ray are just free extras you DO end up paying for them and if you dont want them nor plan to use them than why PAY for them?

you didnt sound bashful you just sounded kinda dumb.

 

[Jumplion]

If it didn't have crappy expensive hardware in it, then the multimedia features would be a great benefit. Right now, it's irrelevant.

Having multimedia functions is detrimental to anything either. If your main focus for the PS3 is games, then fine, but don't be whining how they give you some extra goodies to frolic around in. They're addons that enhance your experience, like effect options in your camera.

could it be because *gasp* all that 'extra' stuff is coming at a price? its not like the multi-media options or the Blu-ray are just free extras you DO end up paying for them and if you dont want them nor plan to use them than why PAY for them?

you didnt sound bashful you just sounded kinda dumb.

Please explain to me how those extra things come at a price? If you don't care about music, then don't buy music CDs and put them in your PS3. If you don't care about movies, don't buy Blu-ray movies and watch them on you PS3. I didn't care about any of those things, but every now and then I did use those features. So I'm glad I didn't have to buy an overpriced separate blu-ray device just to watch the Dark Knight on Blu-ray because it was already a neat addon to my PS3.

 

[Merciless.Fire]

But that's my point, you WON'T be shelling out thousands of dollars for these in a few years. Prices fall, Blu-Ray needs to seep into the market and find its equilibrium price, and the market will oblige and move on.

well unless they put in some kind of swap program that allows me to trade in my DVDs for blu-ray disks than ill be paying thousands of dollers to replace my current movies. i dont care if the price of Blu-ray movies drop to $10 a pop thats still 200 movies X $10 in replacment costs. something that the 'improvment' in quality that blu-ray offers over DVD just isnt worth.

its not even worth the cost of buying the player or the TV at this point and wont be no matter HOW much the price drops untill the day that the TVs are $300 and the players are $100 tops, but when THAT day gets here their will be a whole NEW generation of hardware that you 'must have' instead. there is a term for this you know its called 'planned obsolescence'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence go read that link it explanes my point i great detail.

now if that hooker teleportation thing ever comes to life than i may rethink, till then its a blatiant money grab trying to force hardware upgrades for minimal improvments. if you want my $3,000 or $4,000 to upgrade (and thats taking into account a price drop for marketing forces) you better be offereing a damn sight more than a small improvment in picture quality.

Please, Blu-Ray is not going to go under. All movies are now being created with Blu-Ray formats now, as universally all production companies have accepted Blu-Ray, it's only a matter of TIME. Just because we live in a world of "right now" doesn't mean that's how it's going to work. Where's my hover car? Plus, who said you HAVE to buy all your old movies on Blu-Ray? Keep your DVD player! I still have a VHS and use it to play Pearl Harbor. I still use my PS2 to play hits like FFX and Jak.

 

[Brett Alex]

Uh huh. Can you, uh, can you even consider the logistics of removing blu-ray players from all upcoming PS3s? Seriously? The logistics alone, never mind PR and compatibly issues.

can you concider the logistics of loosing an entire consol cycle war if they DONT? metal gear solid might be worth an extra $200 for YOU but its obviously not for the majority of average consumers. and the truth is you cant compeat on a large scale like Sony is trying to do if your game plan is based around trying to sucker enough people into spending an extra $200 for a single game. or even 4 or 5 titles.

the logic is inescapable, sony is in last place and its the cost of their machine that put them there, that cost is a DIRECT result of the blu-ray player. they can either continue on and just write off this whole generation or they can make a change and catch up. personaly i dont care what they do but if they keep the blu-ray and the extra $200 that gos with it on an allreay to my mind overpriced system than they wont have MY busiess. than again the X-box wont be at THEIR price range either. the reward just isnt worth the cost when PCs can do much much much more for alot less and a single title or two doesnt change that economic picture for me at all.

Wow. Just wow.
Cars are expensive, wouldn't it just be better if they just y'know, sold it without the engine? Hey, You could save a couple of grand that way.

I can see this is pointless, because you don't want a PS3 in the first place, but can you understand that Sony are, and always have been going for a long term market strategy this generation. They never intended to dominate the market in the first year, even in the first five years. They planned for all this. Yes, they are doing worse in terms of sales than they predicted, but its nowhere enough to make them collapse and die, Sega style.

Do you even remember the Gamecube? Yeah Nintendo's never recovered after that faux pas.

 

[TsunamiWombat]

Uh huh. Can you, uh, can you even consider the logistics of removing blu-ray players from all upcoming PS3s? Seriously? The logistics alone, never mind PR and compatibly issues.

can you concider the logistics of loosing an entire consol cycle war if they DONT? metal gear solid might be worth an extra $200 for YOU but its obviously not for the majority of average consumers. and the truth is you cant compeat on a large scale like Sony is trying to do if your game plan is based around trying to sucker enough people into spending an extra $200 for a single game. or even 4 or 5 titles.

the logic is inescapable, sony is in last place and its the cost of their machine that put them there, that cost is a DIRECT result of the blu-ray player. they can either continue on and just write off this whole generation or they can make a change and catch up. personaly i dont care what they do but if they keep the blu-ray and the extra $200 that gos with it on an allreay to my mind overpriced system than they wont have MY busiess. than again the X-box wont be at THEIR price range either. the reward just isnt worth the cost when PCs can do much much much more for alot less and a single title or two doesnt change that economic picture for me at all.

Wow. Just wow.
Cars are expensive, wouldn't it just be better if they just y'know, sold it without the engine? Hey, You could save a couple of grand that way.

I can see this is pointless, because you don't want a PS3 in the first place, but can you understand that Sony are, and always have been going for a long term market strategy this generation. They never intended to dominate the market in the first year, even in the first five years. They planned for all this. Yes, they are doing worse in terms of sales than they predicted, but its nowhere enough to make them collapse and die, Sega style.

Do you even remember the Gamecube? Yeah Nintendo's never recovered after that faux pas.

Investors are fickle creatures with no patience for the 'longterm plan'. Bush had a longterm plan. Take note the economy dive is having Sony cutting jobs like ballast.

 

[Aries_Split]

I've looked at the ps3's stuff, and I rather like the way it looks. The dashboard UI alone has a very calming feel to it, unfortunatley it doesn't have the huge game selection I want. Even for the games I do want that are on it I can easily just buy them for 360.

Sadly though I will be buying in the far future when god of war 3 comes out....rat bastards making it a ps3 exclusive. One can only hope they will have a change of heart and give 360 a slice of the pie so I don't waste money on a system for one game....

EDIT Yes, I'm a diehard GoW fanboy

So Sony Computer Entertainment Santa Monica (the people who make the series) should give a game whose rights Sony owns completely to the 360, despite the fact that it would mean doubling their workload or signifigantly scaling back their ambition?

You realize that the 360 and PS3 are even in terms of power

No, no they're not. You need proof? Lets take another look at Killzone 2. While they may have been similar in terms of output before, now we are seeing the difference - remember that Killzone 2 is barely over half of its possible power, and beats the crap out of the full capabilities of the 360 (based on quotes from Guerilla and Epic, respectively).

If Santa Monica wanted to really make the best game possible, they would make it on a PC. There is no argument to this,

Yes, yes there is. The game is an action heavy hack and slash, the best of its kind bar none. This does not now, nor will ever, belong on a PC - it is purely console territory, requiring a controller over a keyboard to better pull off combos, sticks over a mouse for character direction and rolls, and a couch to sit on.

If only there was a place to plug in a controller...

And Indigo, no matter what Sony is telling you, look at the HARDWARE. The PS3 is running on the equivalent of a 7800GTX Ultra, they even share the same chip set. The 360 is running on just about the same thing. Look at Gears of War 2, it looks just as good as Killzone, both of which are demolished by something like Crysis.

Epic say that Gears of War 2 was the full extent of the 360's capabilities. Guerilla say that Killzone 2 uses 60% of the Ps3's GPU. Reviewers say that Killzone 2 makes Gears of War II look like crap. Either they're all lying, or you, a random poster on the internet, are incorrect.

And no, we're not discussing peripherals, we're looking at it with the PC using a mouse and keyboard - designing a game around the assumption that the consumer base will buy a peripheral they won't need again is bad form to begin with. (Yes, there are exceptions, however these are for the purpose of immersion and fantasy fulfillment - a controller doesn't feel sufficiently like the blades to make it practical in that sense, and a controller that looks like said blades wouold be highly impractical)

Alright, I'll concede. The 360 is less powerful than a PS3, but a Mid Range Gaming PC will demolish either of them. Also, the thing about the periphials? Rock Band.

Why do you think I said exceptions for the purpose of fantasy fulfillment? Holding the sticks, the mic, the axe, you feel like a Rock God - you don't get the same effect when you hold a controller. You get it when you use the controller well, but at that point its the games success and not the controllers.

And no, not mid range. I concede, as I have many times that Crysis looks better than Killzone 2 - however, you are severely overestimating the quality difference. You act as if to compare the two is comparing cave drawings to a digital photo, I say its the difference between an amateur digital photographer and and a professionals in a world occupied mainly by cameraphones (yes, I know that that metaphor was incredibly bad, but you get my point, and at the moment I really can't think of a better one).

I'll agree with that.