yeah as i said before the gamecube really sobered up Nintendo and gave them the kick to the nuts they deserved. i don't think many ppl remember the "Nintendo seal of approval" stickers on NES games, no sticker, game couldn't be released and there was a HUGE lawsuit over it toomark_n_b said:
Why so much hate for Sony?
- Thread starter Jumplion
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Microsoft: I hate you playstation!
Sony: I hate you xbox!
Microsoft: Now about that new VAIO
Sony: We want Vista Ultimate because it is a new high end laptop.
Microsoft: OK.
Sony: I hate you xbox!
Microsoft: Now about that new VAIO
Sony: We want Vista Ultimate because it is a new high end laptop.
Microsoft: OK.
Oh lordy lordy, I try to stay humble I try to stay pure! But oh lordy lordy! I just can't keep hope!mark_n_b said:
I agree with #1- well...all of them. Especially #1, i can't count how many times i've ready posts on IGN or Gamespot that showed peoples experiences with a Sony product and caused them to switch to another brand/console.
The whole fucking industry is built on copycats, Guitar Hero 4 is going to just be "rock band" and even iD software and Valve are bickering about "who made the gravity gun first" - not to mention that Microsoft is going to have that "360-mote" soon and hell, the PS3 is rumored to have one too.MGG=REVIEWS said:
Also, DS sales are better than the Wii so yeah, the Wii sucks now right?
No, there aren't many games coming out for the wii so I think people will be playing Metal Gear Online until they ahve a use for the Wii, unless of course they can fit one or more Wii-ware titles on there. Also, I'm sure everyone is getting sick of Wii Sports and SSBB and UC - then there are the games that everyone says are amazing but are only really worth it if you buy them used.
I can't stand it when people want to defend companies - you think they really care about customers? You think that Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo give a damn about ANYTHING except MONEY? I don't defend either of them. They are all huge corporations who want nothing more than cash (and that's a good thing, because they wouldn't be responsible to their shareholders if they weren't). Stop saying M$, when Sony are just as money hungry and big as Microsoft. What Microsoft is to Americans, Sony is to the Japanese - a incredible bloated electronics giant which is testing consumer patience. Both companies should be given as much flak as possible (that goes for Nintendo as well). Given how much a Playstation 3 costs, maybe I should start calling it the PS$?
I have an Xbox 360, a Wii, and I AM getting a Playstation 3 (mostly for Metal Gear Solid 4 and Final Fantasy XIII which will come out in about 2 years, if we're lucky).
Originally, all I wanted was a Wii and PS3. The Wii I liked, because it was cheap as chips, and I like the Super Mario series and I was looking forward to No More Heroes and the Zelda series as well. I was going to get a PS3, because I am addicted to Final Fantasy. I had also heard about Resistance: Fall of Man. But as time wore on, I hadn't heard about anything else for the PS3. Uncharted - hell, I didn't hear about that until the reviews were out, and it never caught my attention. Still haven't heard about Warhark. Heavenly Sword, I'd heard good and bad things about, but I just don't like that sort of game. Metal Gear Solid 4 I had heard about, and that's pretty much the reason I'm going to get the PS3 in a few weeks.
I got the Xbox 360 because of Mass Effect, Forza, Halo 3 and Gears of War. It was also cheaper. I was at the store during Christmas last year making a serious consideration - do I want a Playstation 3 which I wouldn't play much until MSG4 and FFXIII, and which would set me back nearly 1,000 Australian Dollars, or an Xbox 360 which would cost quite a bit less, and have titles I was interested in NOW? I got an Xbox 360.
PS3 is (still) too expensive (although I am getting one). Now, it has its good points - it is by far the most powerful console out there. But it sucked at marketing. Sony did very well with the PS2, so well in fact, that it decided that it could take it's market for granted and start behaving like jerks. Nintendo did the same thing, and released the GameCube which bombed (I also have a GameCube, and barely play on the bloody thing). It then decided to treat its customers better. Microsoft, which for many years lived in Sony's shadow, pulled out all stops trying to capture the US market.
Sony, on the other hand, thought that customers were slaves to the Sony brand. It thought that customers would pay their arms and legs for a PS3 ($1000 AUD for a console is a lot for me, I confess that I am pretty poor). I wasn't prepared for that. Now that it's come down in price by $300 here in Australia, I am tempted to get one, and I most likely will.
But the Playstation 3 just doesn't have as many games that I want. It's marketing was dismal. They had a guy going on about Giant Enemy Crabs and riiiiiiiidge raaaaacer. I honestly do not care one jot about Blue Ray, because I like DVDs just fine, and don't really notice that much of a difference between them.
Now, Microsoft are just as money-hungry as Sony, just as uncaring about customers as the next big company, but they have more third party support, their console is cheaper, they did not behave like they "owned" the console market, and they released their console quicker. Sony, thought that it did not have to take consumer interests at heart. They got lax. They got arrogant. They were successful with the PS2, and they thought it would transition to the PS3.
Of course, the same bloody thing is going to happen to Microsoft and Nintendo. Give them a taste of dominance, and the power will go their heads, and they will become gigantic blow-hards.
Count your luck stars, Sony, that Square-Enix still releases Final Fantasy games exclusive to your console. If not for that, I wouldn't be getting your console. Too Expensive! Don't treat Australian Gamers that badly!
I have an Xbox 360, a Wii, and I AM getting a Playstation 3 (mostly for Metal Gear Solid 4 and Final Fantasy XIII which will come out in about 2 years, if we're lucky).
Originally, all I wanted was a Wii and PS3. The Wii I liked, because it was cheap as chips, and I like the Super Mario series and I was looking forward to No More Heroes and the Zelda series as well. I was going to get a PS3, because I am addicted to Final Fantasy. I had also heard about Resistance: Fall of Man. But as time wore on, I hadn't heard about anything else for the PS3. Uncharted - hell, I didn't hear about that until the reviews were out, and it never caught my attention. Still haven't heard about Warhark. Heavenly Sword, I'd heard good and bad things about, but I just don't like that sort of game. Metal Gear Solid 4 I had heard about, and that's pretty much the reason I'm going to get the PS3 in a few weeks.
I got the Xbox 360 because of Mass Effect, Forza, Halo 3 and Gears of War. It was also cheaper. I was at the store during Christmas last year making a serious consideration - do I want a Playstation 3 which I wouldn't play much until MSG4 and FFXIII, and which would set me back nearly 1,000 Australian Dollars, or an Xbox 360 which would cost quite a bit less, and have titles I was interested in NOW? I got an Xbox 360.
PS3 is (still) too expensive (although I am getting one). Now, it has its good points - it is by far the most powerful console out there. But it sucked at marketing. Sony did very well with the PS2, so well in fact, that it decided that it could take it's market for granted and start behaving like jerks. Nintendo did the same thing, and released the GameCube which bombed (I also have a GameCube, and barely play on the bloody thing). It then decided to treat its customers better. Microsoft, which for many years lived in Sony's shadow, pulled out all stops trying to capture the US market.
Sony, on the other hand, thought that customers were slaves to the Sony brand. It thought that customers would pay their arms and legs for a PS3 ($1000 AUD for a console is a lot for me, I confess that I am pretty poor). I wasn't prepared for that. Now that it's come down in price by $300 here in Australia, I am tempted to get one, and I most likely will.
But the Playstation 3 just doesn't have as many games that I want. It's marketing was dismal. They had a guy going on about Giant Enemy Crabs and riiiiiiiidge raaaaacer. I honestly do not care one jot about Blue Ray, because I like DVDs just fine, and don't really notice that much of a difference between them.
Now, Microsoft are just as money-hungry as Sony, just as uncaring about customers as the next big company, but they have more third party support, their console is cheaper, they did not behave like they "owned" the console market, and they released their console quicker. Sony, thought that it did not have to take consumer interests at heart. They got lax. They got arrogant. They were successful with the PS2, and they thought it would transition to the PS3.
Of course, the same bloody thing is going to happen to Microsoft and Nintendo. Give them a taste of dominance, and the power will go their heads, and they will become gigantic blow-hards.
Count your luck stars, Sony, that Square-Enix still releases Final Fantasy games exclusive to your console. If not for that, I wouldn't be getting your console. Too Expensive! Don't treat Australian Gamers that badly!
All three major consoles are produced by a single, hidden corporation that controls all operations for Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony-- this allows them to drive up the price of their products using illusory "competition".
How do I know this? The same way most of the people in this thread know most of the things they post.
How do I know this? The same way most of the people in this thread know most of the things they post.
@Korolev: Alot of what you say makes sense, very good argument (especially a non-biased one)
Though it would be named the P$3 not PS$ or $ony, and I think the reason why people use M$ instead of MS is because the Microsoft is a larger corporation than Sony (to my knowlege). They have computers, applications, consoles, MP3 players, and a ton of other stuff. Don't get me wrong, Sony has those stuff too but i think because Microsoft has been known for being money driven more than any other company is why it gets the acronym M$.
Though i'm sick of people saying that the PS-ehhem, excuse me the P$3 is too expensive. If anything it's too cheap. There i said it, as it really shouldn't be a secret, the P$3 is UNDER PRICED. Really, the stand alone blu-ray players i've seen cost around $1000, the P$3 costs at the most $600 and the P$3 is ALSO a gaming console and a media storage device (Music and videos) and even an internet browser. Hell if pushed it could even be a griller! Sony has allegedly lost over 3.3 billion because they severely underpriced the P$3, and all of you want Sony to lower the cost even more? Bunch of ungrateful bastards.
Hell, my dad at first thought the P$3 was overpriced for me to buy, but after he found out what it was capable of even he thought it was underpriced (he works for an electronics company, he knows what he talks about.)
But that's enough of me ranting AGAIN. Boy, it feels good to tell the truth/let out some steam.
Though it would be named the P$3 not PS$ or $ony, and I think the reason why people use M$ instead of MS is because the Microsoft is a larger corporation than Sony (to my knowlege). They have computers, applications, consoles, MP3 players, and a ton of other stuff. Don't get me wrong, Sony has those stuff too but i think because Microsoft has been known for being money driven more than any other company is why it gets the acronym M$.
Though i'm sick of people saying that the PS-ehhem, excuse me the P$3 is too expensive. If anything it's too cheap. There i said it, as it really shouldn't be a secret, the P$3 is UNDER PRICED. Really, the stand alone blu-ray players i've seen cost around $1000, the P$3 costs at the most $600 and the P$3 is ALSO a gaming console and a media storage device (Music and videos) and even an internet browser. Hell if pushed it could even be a griller! Sony has allegedly lost over 3.3 billion because they severely underpriced the P$3, and all of you want Sony to lower the cost even more? Bunch of ungrateful bastards.
Hell, my dad at first thought the P$3 was overpriced for me to buy, but after he found out what it was capable of even he thought it was underpriced (he works for an electronics company, he knows what he talks about.)
But that's enough of me ranting AGAIN. Boy, it feels good to tell the truth/let out some steam.
Jumplion
Sony actually is the bigger company (going by stock price) Ranging around the low 50s while Microsoft hangs around the high 20s.
Is that $1000 Aussie dollars? Because there are sub $200 (CAD=~99 USD) blu-ray drives
http://www.tigerdirect.ca/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=3538928&CatId=3634
And Stand Alone players that cost less than $300
http://www.bestbuy.ca/catalog/proddetail.asp?logon=&langid=EN&sku_id=0926INGFS10100059&catid=25174
Sony actually is the bigger company (going by stock price) Ranging around the low 50s while Microsoft hangs around the high 20s.
Is that $1000 Aussie dollars? Because there are sub $200 (CAD=~99 USD) blu-ray drives
http://www.tigerdirect.ca/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=3538928&CatId=3634
And Stand Alone players that cost less than $300
http://www.bestbuy.ca/catalog/proddetail.asp?logon=&langid=EN&sku_id=0926INGFS10100059&catid=25174
Stand alone blu-ray drives have ome down quite fast, I hope the blank media follows suit as well.
Can't find the Stock prices (those ones are old (Fall 07)
Maybe you can find it in google's mess.
http://finance.google.com/finance?q=TYO:6758
Found Microsoft's though
http://finance.google.com/finance?q=microsoft&hl=en
I couldn't find a CNET or other review (I'm not searching though multiple google pages)
I found a user review though.
http://www.blu-ray.com/players/players.php?id=73&show=userreviews
Maybe you can find it in google's mess.
http://finance.google.com/finance?q=TYO:6758
Found Microsoft's though
http://finance.google.com/finance?q=microsoft&hl=en
I couldn't find a CNET or other review (I'm not searching though multiple google pages)
I found a user review though.
http://www.blu-ray.com/players/players.php?id=73&show=userreviews
I don't think it's so much the games, or the machine. It's more of Sony's attitude during the first few months of PS3's life. They were very arrogant, and more annoying than anything I have ever seen. Most people shares the same sentiment. I have to confess that during that time, I too hate Sony with a passion. (I was perfectly OK with the PS3 and what not, but the company itself was unbearable.)
Not yet it seems.shadow skill said:
http://www.bestbuy.ca/catalog/proddetail.asp?logon=&langid=EN&sku_id=0926INGFS10077976&catid=26263
http://www.bestbuy.ca/catalog/proddetail.asp?logon=&langid=EN&sku_id=0926INGFS10084734&catid=26263
Oh dear god this is still up.http://www.thelookandsoundofperfect.com/
But the Playstation 3 just doesn't have as many games that I want. It's marketing was dismal. They had a guy going on about Giant Enemy Crabs and riiiiiiiidge raaaaacer. I honestly do not care one jot about Blue Ray, because I like DVDs just fine, and don't really notice that much of a difference between them.
*must, resist, PS3...fanboyism...to...enlighten...the uneducated...must...not try...to offend...*
BAH, I hate those old jokes, they are old because that was years ago when the PS3 actually didn't have good games but now it does so why are you trying to kid yourself into buying one if you are stuck in the past? You clearly have no interest in the PS3 except for MGS4 so at the moment it seems like the PS3 doesn't have much but do some more research, it's 08 now, not 06 it's grown quite a bit, not to mention most things are multiplatform nowadays anyway, getting a system for exclusives just isn't a good idea anymore - especially since most of the exclusives aren't really worth it in the first place, no matter which system it is.
There IS a difference between Blu-Ray and DVD but it's only highly noticable on bigger HDTVs. DVD is nice but it's getting old, it only holds 8.5 gigs of space while Blu-Ray holds 50, giving you more special features on movies, higher picture and sound quality (I assume you don't have a T.V. or Speaker system to take advantage of it though) - and less of that "widescreen edition" or "double sided special edition" bullshit, one blu-ray disc has all, and that's final, no need for 8 DVDs of the same movie hoping that it will look good on widescreen or not.
I just hope Blu-Ray stops looking like a luxury to people, DVD sucks, no one wants to admit it yet. - but whatever, if people can put up with Lost Odyssey Spanning FOUR FUCKING DVD'S then so be it. Quantity > Quality seems to be the standard now. *see "Nintendo Wii"*
*must, resist, PS3...fanboyism...to...enlighten...the uneducated...must...not try...to offend...*
BAH, I hate those old jokes, they are old because that was years ago when the PS3 actually didn't have good games but now it does so why are you trying to kid yourself into buying one if you are stuck in the past? You clearly have no interest in the PS3 except for MGS4 so at the moment it seems like the PS3 doesn't have much but do some more research, it's 08 now, not 06 it's grown quite a bit, not to mention most things are multiplatform nowadays anyway, getting a system for exclusives just isn't a good idea anymore - especially since most of the exclusives aren't really worth it in the first place, no matter which system it is.
There IS a difference between Blu-Ray and DVD but it's only highly noticable on bigger HDTVs. DVD is nice but it's getting old, it only holds 8.5 gigs of space while Blu-Ray holds 50, giving you more special features on movies, higher picture and sound quality (I assume you don't have a T.V. or Speaker system to take advantage of it though) - and less of that "widescreen edition" or "double sided special edition" bullshit, one blu-ray disc has all, and that's final, no need for 8 DVDs of the same movie hoping that it will look good on widescreen or not.
I just hope Blu-Ray stops looking like a luxury to people, DVD sucks, no one wants to admit it yet. - but whatever, if people can put up with Lost Odyssey Spanning FOUR FUCKING DVD'S then so be it. Quantity > Quality seems to be the standard now. *see "Nintendo Wii"*
50/8.5=5.88ElArabDeMagnifico said:
So If it is the same price ratio as DVD Blu-ray should cost 5.88 times more (Blank Media)
Yet ONE Disc is 25-29 for a 25 GB Or the lovely deal of 79.99 for a dual layer (50GB one)
Yet I can get 15 Dual layer DVDs for $20
(Single Layer BRD http://www.bestbuy.ca/catalog/proddetail.asp?logon=&langid=EN&sku_id=0926INGFS10077976&catid=26263)
(Dual Layer BRD http://www.bestbuy.ca/catalog/proddetail.asp?logon=&langid=EN&sku_id=0926INGFS10084734&catid=26263)
(Dual layer DVDs http://www.bestbuy.ca/catalog/proddetail.asp?logon=&langid=EN&sku_id=0926INGFS10074293&catid=20032)
So you pay 79.99 for that ultimate 50GB Disc. And $20 for 127.5 GB in dual layer DVDs. Thats a very high premium on 1 disc convenience that holds less than half the CHEAPER 15 DL-DVDs do.
EDIT: WTF I looked at the picture and the 79.99 disc isn't even dual layer what a rip off.
You have copy and paste the link other wise it won't work.
I don't think it's in question of which one is cheaper, probably which one is more convinient for the user and the player (though i probably completely contradicted myself there) And Blu-ray eliminates the hassle for switching discs so that's a plus.shatnershaman said:
BTW, non of the links work for me, find some new ones.
EDIT: Nvm. But this is turning into more of a Format War rather than a Console War. INteresting considering the Format War is supposedly over and that Blu-Ray is the winner.
So Rolls-Royce is better than the VW beetle because it is more convenient (Umbrellas,TVs,Etc) yet the sales still show the beetle and DVD vastly out sell the more expensive option.Jumplion said: