PDA

View Full Version : Sony, what the hell!


SFFWorld.com
Home - Discussion Forums - News - Reviews - Interviews

New reviews, interviews and news

New in the Discussion Forum


Pages : [1] 2 3

Chirios
July 16th, 2008, 03:07 PM
Alright, seriously. I spent roughly 400 quid on this console because the last two consoles were as dope as they were. I thought that I would be treated to awesome console-exclusives; top-of-the-line online play; a console that dominated the charts, because it cost 400 bleeding quid and had that Cell chip thingie.

But oh, whats this? Practically every game out on PS3 is out on XBox360, and most games look worse on PS3. Save the completely and utterly AWESOME metal gear solid 4, PS3 has no significant exclusives to speak of, and more importantly, it keeps losing the few exclusives it has. FFXIII is coming out on XBOX, GTA now comes out on XBOX at the same time as it does PS3. And Xbox dominates the market with better games, better online play, better every-freaking-thing. I feel like I've been duped, like Sony just said: "hey, we've been doing everything right so far, we don't need to try." Seriously, does anybody else notice this? Because right now, I feel as though I spent 400 so that I could play one game (mgs4)

saintjon
July 22nd, 2008, 06:22 PM
Sony is the new Sega. Congrats on having the most powerful hardware available.

kater
July 27th, 2008, 09:24 AM
I think you have to consider the 360 came out a year or so before PS3 so while developers have got to grips with the Xbox, they're still learning fully what the Playstation's architecture can do. So I think in the next yeear you'll see some better quality titles on PS3 but how many? Pass.

I can sympathise I was a big Sony fan, PS1 and 2 on release day, but the wait and cost for PS3 was too great so I gave in and bought a 360 just after release. It hasn't been smooth sailing, one replacement thanks to the dreaded circle of death - free from M$ that said, but it seems where M$ already had Live and a very good structure in place, Sony have spread themselves thin spending so much money bringing out a new console and trying to make headway in the on-line area.

So while Sony spent on the hardware and the gamble of Blu-Ray, M$ basically just wanted to get out there first, realising that people have huge DVD collections they're not going to replace for a good long while - irrelevant of the new technology, and secure big license titles plus improve Live. They've done that and managed to make the 360 more creator friendly than the PS3 into the bargain. M$ listened to deveopers, Sony did their own thing. So at the moment M$ has the best of both worlds and a strong price point, being further ahead in their product cycle, whilst Sony is playing catch-up in all areas and forgetting the one key issue - it's still a GAMES console and thus needs quality games. Other than MGS4 I couldn't name any other worthy title I'm missing out on from having a 360.

Chr0n
July 29th, 2008, 11:42 AM
Sony has build in the better hardware, so they might make it in the long run - which isn't until 2 or 3 years yet to come.

I have to admit that I was a fan of every PS out till these, MS is the clear winner as yet.

The only things, that speak for a PS3 and against an XBox are no fees for online play for one and the Blue Ray device for another.

Bond
July 31st, 2008, 04:16 AM
Sony no longer seems to be the innovative leader it once was. These days they get by on their brand name charging everyone extra for it. The consumer electronics technology companies I admire now are Samsung and Canon. Same or better quality at a lower price.

D_A
July 31st, 2008, 09:15 PM
I think you'll find that games developers who are developing multi-platform games are primarily developing for Xbox, but are too lazy, or don't want to fork out money on the extra effort it takes to optimise the game for both platforms, hence why the graphics on the PS3 are substandard compared to the Xbox.

To compare, I've seen Assassin's Creed on both Xbox and PS3 and the graphics are much half-assed on the PS3. Same thing with the Iron Man movie game tie-in that I rented out on the PS3. Unfortnuately I couldn't get my hands on the 360 version, but seeing the demo on both consoles, again the 360 was heaps better.

The thing is, right now, it's much easier to develop games for the Xbox, because it's relatively simple compared with the PS3. I've played MGS4 to completion, and it's damn well done, but that's because it's PS3 only so has been fully optimised for it.

I've also played GTA4 on the PS3, and the graphics seem pretty damn fine, but I haven't played it on the 360. It's possible that it's a similar problem, but I have the feeling that Rockstar spent the time optimising the game for both consoles, but then they did spend as much money on the game as most movie studios spend on a blockbuster movie.

As I stated before though, in my opinion, it all comes down to one of one thing: money or time (time = money, doesn't it? :D). I also think it's always going to be this way (especially given the difference between platforms), which is somewhat disappointing, but that's life sometimes! :)

Bengoshi-San
July 31st, 2008, 09:23 PM
I think you'll find that games developers who are developing multi-platform games are primarily developing for Xbox, but are too lazy, or don't want to fork out money on the extra effort it takes to optimise the game for both platforms, hence why the graphics on the PS3 are substandard compared to the Xbox.

To compare, I've seen Assassin's Creed on both Xbox and PS3 and the graphics are much half-assed on the PS3. Same thing with the Iron Man movie game tie-in that I rented out on the PS3. Unfortnuately I couldn't get my hands on the 360 version, but seeing the demo on both consoles, again the 360 was heaps better.

The thing is, right now, it's much easier to develop games for the Xbox, because it's relatively simple compared with the PS3. I've played MGS4 to completion, and it's damn well done, but that's because it's PS3 only so has been fully optimised for it.

I've also played GTA4 on the PS3, and the graphics seem pretty damn fine, but I haven't played it on the 360. It's possible that it's a similar problem, but I have the feeling that Rockstar spent the time optimising the game for both consoles, but then they did spend as much money on the game as most movie studios spend on a blockbuster movie.

As I stated before though, in my opinion, it all comes down to one of one thing: money or time (time = money, doesn't it? :D). I also think it's always going to be this way (especially given the difference between platforms), which is somewhat disappointing, but that's life sometimes! :)

Couldn't have said it better myself. I'm a huge video-gamer and huge playstation franchise fan/supporter. I also have an xbox360 and other consoles.

It's all of the things already mentioned, and the trend is already shifting.

The BluRay disc format, free Playstation Network online service and built in Wifi are just some of the benefits the PS3 has which will come to more fruition soon.

I also played through all of MGS4 and I'm sorry to say.. it's an experience that xbox360 fans never will have.. an experience that is so amazing that it shouldn't even be considered a video game but a piece of art.

And the games that ARE coded on the ps3 primarily.. always look better than their 360 counter part. It's just that the 360 and pc have so much in common that developers are taking the easy route. Of course Sony didn't help the situation by making development kits/tools very expensive for companies.

It's all shifting slowly. Fact of the matter is this:
Sony PS3 does everything the 360 can + some and is designed to be a 10-year console whereas the 360's entire purpose was to be released first, ahead of the competition (which cost them dearly thanks to the RROD), and at the current moment.. the hardware is fully pressed to the breaking point.

Developers are already saying that they need more storage and are converting over to the BluRay.

To each his own though. I hate fanboys and name-callers. In the end of the day.. play what you like on whatever system you like.

:D

kater
August 2nd, 2008, 08:53 AM
It's all shifting slowly. Fact of the matter is this:
Sony PS3 does everything the 360 can + some and is designed to be a 10-year console whereas the 360's entire purpose was to be released first, ahead of the competition (which cost them dearly thanks to the RROD), and at the current moment.. the hardware is fully pressed to the breaking point.


Is such a thing viable though? I'm very dubious. Technology is always in a state of rapid progression so a decade is pratically an eternity in the industry, especially with talk of both Wii 2 and Xbox 3 already in devlopment. Effective console life cycles are 4/5 years because of changing technology, so companies will always be behind in the use of cutting edge tech in what, for all intents and purposes, is still a games machine, because it's a mass-market product. Meaning while the PS3 specs may have been very up-to-date 2/3 years ago when it was announced, now they aren't so much and will they be able to skip a generation in console development. Not very likely to mind.

Sony has had the run of the market until recently because Nintendo were putting out consoles that didn't appeal to either the tech hungry or casual gamers and the original Xbox was only a beach head for M$. But now there is a genuine three-way contest and with the Wii outselling PS3 3:1 in Japan and the 360 doing so well in N.America, they could be left trailing.
That said I do see the PS3 coming into it's own in the next few years, IF they get plenty of quality titles, but longer term I think it'll be either hanging on by it's fingernails or defunct.

Bengoshi-San
August 2nd, 2008, 10:17 PM
It's shortsightedness that makes other companies make only 4-5 year systems. Sony on the other hand shoots for 10 year consoles that Sony is known for.. like the PS2, which is still making a lot of money and selling a lot of games. and is still popular.

Sony might have messed up the beginning of this battle, but the war is easily theirs.

As for the Wii, it has no interesting games, it's more of a "toy" than a video game console.

PC is the most powerful but because of piracy.. almost every developer has jumped ship and gave up causing a major drop in PC game development.

The 360 is a great gaming machine and Microsoft's first BIG success and it SHOULD have been.. considering how badly their first console failed.

In my eyes the Wii is basically a reboxed GameCube with a gimmicky controller and an amazingly well-run marketing-advertisement campaign.

kater
August 3rd, 2008, 08:09 AM
Sony might have messed up the beginning of this battle, but the war is easily theirs.


I thought you weren't a fanboy :) What exactly is this thought based on?