I'll be glad when Sony is gone, they have brought nothing to gaming really

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#-49 Posted by CommanderpeaceC (63 posts) -

[QUOTE="CommanderpeaceC"][QUOTE="1080pOnly"]

I agree that it was. However it was merely another studio funded by Sony, not actually Sony themselves. Sony's DNA is that of a hardware company and they really haven't ever showed their prowess at that. In fact the horrible build quality and lack of power compared to their competitors in all gen's they have been a part of is proof enough of that. Granted MS dropped the ball this gen too and I also hate the direction they are now taking.

1080pOnly

You can't say ms dropped the ball when they did nothing but gain.

Ah I wasn't clear, I mean in terms of hardware quality.

Yeah Zune and Xbox were tanks
#-48 Posted by CaseyWegner (70104 posts) -

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

[QUOTE="CommanderpeaceC"] Where were you 2nd and 4th gen?CommanderpeaceC

playing those systems and waiting for the day i could make that post and refer to the reality of 2012.

Running away from your own post I see.

no. i'm talking about the present day.

#-47 Posted by 1080pOnly (1986 posts) -

CommanderpeaceC

No they didn't.

Yes, they did.

#-46 Posted by sonic1564 (3265 posts) -

You're a fvcking moron tc.

#-45 Posted by Puckhog04 (22766 posts) -

Considering the impact of some of their exclusives in both the PS1, PS2, and PS3 eras; I'd say you're wrong...on all fronts.

#-44 Posted by CommanderpeaceC (63 posts) -

[QUOTE="CommanderpeaceC"][QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

playing those systems and waiting for the day i could make that post and refer to the reality of 2012.

CaseyWegner

Running away from your own post I see.

no. i'm talking about the present day.

You responded to a post talking about before this gen. You were proven wrong move on.
#-43 Posted by CommanderpeaceC (63 posts) -

[QUOTE="CommanderpeaceC"]

1080pOnly

No they didn't.

Yes, they did.

Proof?
#-42 Posted by CommanderpeaceC (63 posts) -

Considering the impact of some of their exclusives in both the PS1, PS2, and PS3 eras; I'd say you're wrong...on all fronts.

Puckhog04
THEIR exclusives? Did not much of anything. Third party however.
#-41 Posted by Puckhog04 (22766 posts) -

[QUOTE="Puckhog04"]

Considering the impact of some of their exclusives in both the PS1, PS2, and PS3 eras; I'd say you're wrong...on all fronts.

CommanderpeaceC

THEIR exclusives? Did not much of anything. Third party however.

I get your point. Either way, some of those devs are also 2nd party (owned by Sony in house), which still classifies as Sony. And, really, you're nitpicking. Bungie was a MS 2nd party, in other words, owned by MS and all their games were considered exclusive. This is no different.

#-40 Posted by lundy86_4 (44340 posts) -

THEIR exclusives? Did not much of anything. Third party however.CommanderpeaceC

  1. Killzone 1
  2. Crash bandicoot series
  3. Gran Turismo series
  4. Syphon Filter series
  5. Medieval series
  6. Ape Escape seriesw
  7. LocoRoco series
  8. God of War series
  9. Wipeout series
  10. Sly series
  11. Socom series

Some of those series were huge back in the day.

#-39 Posted by CommanderpeaceC (63 posts) -

[QUOTE="CommanderpeaceC"][QUOTE="Puckhog04"]

Considering the impact of some of their exclusives in both the PS1, PS2, and PS3 eras; I'd say you're wrong...on all fronts.

Puckhog04

THEIR exclusives? Did not much of anything. Third party however.

I get your point. Either way, some of those devs are also 2nd party (owned by Sony in house), which still classifies as Sony. And, really, you're nitpicking. Bungie was a MS 2nd party, in other words, owned by MS and all their games were considered exclusive. This is no different.

How am I not picking? 2nd party budgie or not halo is ms owned. Bad example is bad. So yes it's exclusive lol!
#-38 Posted by CommanderpeaceC (63 posts) -

[QUOTE="CommanderpeaceC"]THEIR exclusives? Did not much of anything. Third party however.lundy86_4

Killzone 1Crash bandicoot seriesGran Turismo seriesSyphon Filter seriesMedieval seriesApe Escape serieswLocoRoco seriesGod of War seriesWipeout seriesSly seriesSocom series

Some of those series were huge back in the day.

Crash was never from Sony, sucker punch was not owned by Sony until a year or so ago, kill zone 1 flopped, syphon filter lost ground quickly and was not a very big franchise especially outside us, medieval got abandoned for a reason just like parrapa the rapper game wise. Next ?
#-37 Posted by PAL360 (27310 posts) -

Sony did a brilliant job, back in 1994, when they released one of the best systems ever made! Since then, they have been mostly about hype and brand name.

#-36 Posted by lundy86_4 (44340 posts) -

Crash was never from Sony, sucker punch was not owned by Sony until a year or so ago, kill zone 1 flopped, syphon filter lost ground quickly and was not a very big franchise especially outside us, medieval got abandoned for a reason just like parrapa the rapper game wise. Next ?CommanderpeaceC

  1. We're specifically talking exclusives, are we not? Barring 3rd party, as it seems.
  2. All these exclusives were huge for Sony. Like it or lump it.
#-35 Posted by CaseyWegner (70104 posts) -

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

[QUOTE="CommanderpeaceC"] Running away from your own post I see.CommanderpeaceC

no. i'm talking about the present day.

You responded to a post talking about before this gen. You were proven wrong move on.

not really, dude. the conversation even continued despite your interference.

#-34 Posted by 1080pOnly (1986 posts) -

they popularized CD as a console medium and the PS2 skyrocketed gaming's popularity. and they made shadow of the colossus.BrunoBRS

They popularised CD as a medium in response to other companies already bringing the medium to market, they did not innovate, they just copied. It is the way of Sony.

Sony's first wide home console release, the PlayStation (codenamed PSX during development, currently PSone), was initially designed to be a CD-ROM drive add-on for Nintendo's Super Nintendo Entertainment System (a.k.a. Super Famicom in Japan) video game console, in response to Sega's Mega-CD. When the prospect of releasing the system as an add-on dissolved, Sony redesigned the machine into a stand alone unit.

#-33 Posted by CommanderpeaceC (63 posts) -

[QUOTE="CommanderpeaceC"]Crash was never from Sony, sucker punch was not owned by Sony until a year or so ago, kill zone 1 flopped, syphon filter lost ground quickly and was not a very big franchise especially outside us, medieval got abandoned for a reason just like parrapa the rapper game wise. Next ?lundy86_4

We're specifically talking exclusives, are we not? Barring 3rd party, as it seems.All these exclusives were huge for Sony. Like it or lump it.

Go back and read we are talking FROM SONY idiot. And no they were not all HUGE. Lol
#-32 Posted by kuraimen (28078 posts) -
Sony has brought Domination and butthurt lemmings. So they should be declared the saint of videogames because of how much good they've done.
#-31 Posted by lundy86_4 (44340 posts) -

[QUOTE="BrunoBRS"]they popularized CD as a console medium and the PS2 skyrocketed gaming's popularity. and they made shadow of the colossus.1080pOnly

They popularised CD as a medium in response to other companies already bringing the medium to market, they did not innovate, they just copied. It is the way of Sony.

Sony's first wide home console release, the PlayStation (codenamed PSX during development, currently PSone), was initially designed to be a CD-ROM drive add-on for Nintendo's Super Nintendo Entertainment System (a.k.a. Super Famicom in Japan) video game console, in response to Sega's Mega-CD. When the prospect of releasing the system as an add-on dissolved, Sony redesigned the machine into a stand alone unit.

Who cares? Whether it's in response or not, they popularized the medium... Bruno was right and your response was largely unnecessary, other than to educate people on what they arleady know.

#-30 Posted by lundy86_4 (44340 posts) -

Go back and read we are talking FROM SONY idiot. And no they were not all HUGE. Lol CommanderpeaceC

You realize that Sony form exclusive contracts, f*cktard... Right?

Third-party was specifically excluded. Second-party was not.

#-29 Posted by clyde46 (47602 posts) -

This thread.

#-28 Posted by DontGetBigIdeas (252 posts) -
Ya know, System Wars would be a lot better if we just ignored attention threads like this, but....
#-27 Posted by clyde46 (47602 posts) -
Ya know, System Wars would be a lot better if we just ignored attention threads like this, but....DontGetBigIdeas
Like moths to a flame.
#-26 Posted by BrunoBRS (73266 posts) -

[QUOTE="BrunoBRS"]they popularized CD as a console medium and the PS2 skyrocketed gaming's popularity. and they made shadow of the colossus.1080pOnly

They popularised CD as a medium in response to other companies already bringing the medium to market, they did not innovate, they just copied. It is the way of Sony.

Sony's first wide home console release, the PlayStation (codenamed PSX during development, currently PSone), was initially designed to be a CD-ROM drive add-on for Nintendo's Super Nintendo Entertainment System (a.k.a. Super Famicom in Japan) video game console, in response to Sega's Mega-CD. When the prospect of releasing the system as an add-on dissolved, Sony redesigned the machine into a stand alone unit.

oh believe me, i know the whole story. but nintendo rejected it on the SNES and rejected it again on the N64, and the sega CD was a catastrophe. no one wanted to mess with CDs anymore. at the end of the day, it doesn't matter who did first, it matters who did right. sony merely took the tech they were developing for nintendo and released a system. i repeat: the SNES CD technology was developed by sony, and sony merely released what nintendo rejected.
#-24 Posted by Puckhog04 (22766 posts) -

[QUOTE="Puckhog04"]

[QUOTE="CommanderpeaceC"] THEIR exclusives? Did not much of anything. Third party however.CommanderpeaceC

I get your point. Either way, some of those devs are also 2nd party (owned by Sony in house), which still classifies as Sony. And, really, you're nitpicking. Bungie was a MS 2nd party, in other words, owned by MS and all their games were considered exclusive. This is no different.

How am I not picking? 2nd party budgie or not halo is ms owned. Bad example is bad. So yes it's exclusive lol!

Alot of those games are 2nd party for Sony, much like Bungie was to MS. Forget it, the point is over your head. The example made sense because Bungie was owned by MS much like alot of the Sony exclusive devs are.

#-23 Posted by BrunoBRS (73266 posts) -
also lol this thread. it made me defend sony. props to TC i guess.
#-22 Posted by lundy86_4 (44340 posts) -

Not what we are talking about learn to ding read you disabled trash. Two different conversations going on try to keep up with one at a time. (Lol crash was not even 2nd party during the time either your misread response still fails)CommanderpeaceC

What, exactly , is being talked about, then?

Puckhog regarded exclusives from the PS1/PS2/PS3 era.

Were mine from those eras? Check.

You then excluded third party by saying they did "much of anything". This, I disproved by pointing to first and second party, as well.

---

You quoted one conversation. I replied to that conversation, and you came out looking like a tw@t. Well done.

#-21 Posted by 1080pOnly (1986 posts) -

Who cares? Whether it's in response or not, they popularized the medium... Bruno was right and your response was largely unnecessary, other than to educate people on what they arleady know.

lundy86_4

I'm willing to bet most people didn't know that. You'll claim you did but I doubt it. It stands as a valid point because part of my annoyance with Sony is that they never innovate in gaming, they just copy others. The fact is that even if Sony had never existed then one of those other companies would have 'popularised' it in their place. The proof? They were already producing systems based on the medium before Sony even entered the market.

It's like the apologists for the Dualshock. Sony found something good, by copying elements of controllers that came before, and then stuck with it for a well over a decade with minimal change...even though it needed a redesign a generation ago. Sony would be nothing without the companies that came before it (their attempt at inovation...the banana..lol).

It's all good though, when they became the market leaders and everyone else was starved of the cash they needed to innovate, they threw away their market lead with a horrible console. They tried to make everyone swallow Bluray, they tried to make everyone suck up the huge price tage, they tried to stay the same because they didn't know what else to do when they had no one to copy. They threw their lead away by failing to produce anything new and now face probable collapse. What a shame.

Hmm, it's late for a brit, I'm off to bed so I'll pick this up in the morning.

#-20 Posted by clyde46 (47602 posts) -
[QUOTE="1080pOnly"]

[QUOTE="BrunoBRS"]they popularized CD as a console medium and the PS2 skyrocketed gaming's popularity. and they made shadow of the colossus.BrunoBRS

They popularised CD as a medium in response to other companies already bringing the medium to market, they did not innovate, they just copied. It is the way of Sony.

Sony's first wide home console release, the PlayStation (codenamed PSX during development, currently PSone), was initially designed to be a CD-ROM drive add-on for Nintendo's Super Nintendo Entertainment System (a.k.a. Super Famicom in Japan) video game console, in response to Sega's Mega-CD. When the prospect of releasing the system as an add-on dissolved, Sony redesigned the machine into a stand alone unit.

oh believe me, i know the whole story. but nintendo rejected it on the SNES and rejected it again on the N64, and the sega CD was a catastrophe. no one wanted to mess with CDs anymore. at the end of the day, it doesn't matter who did first, it matters who did right. sony merely took the tech they were developing for nintendo and released a system. i repeat: the SNES CD technology was developed by sony, and sony merely released what nintendo rejected.

Didnt Sony and Nintendo have a dispute over money that caused one party to break the contract?
#-19 Posted by jackfruitchips (1058 posts) -

[QUOTE="clyde46"]. super600

This is awesome.:lol:

I lol'ed so hard :lol: :lol: :lol:
#-18 Posted by clyde46 (47602 posts) -
[QUOTE="super600"]

[QUOTE="clyde46"]. jackfruitchips

This is awesome.:lol:

I lol'ed so hard :lol: :lol: :lol:

I thought it was festive :P
#-17 Posted by lundy86_4 (44340 posts) -

I'm willing to bet most people didn't know that. You'll claim you did but I doubt it. It stands as a valid point because part of my annoyance with Sony is that they never innovate in gaming, they just copy others. The fact is that even if Sony had never existed then one of those other companies would have 'popularised' it in their place. The proof? They were already producing systems based on the medium before Sony even entered the market.

1080pOnly

I've been aware of that for years. As have many on this board.You've been here since '09, bro... The news has been reported far before then. That proof does not dictate that the medium would have been popular. It's circumstantial.

It's like the apologists for the Dualshock. Sony found something good, by copying elements of controllers that came before, and then stuck with it for a well over a decade with minimal change...even though it needed a redesign a generation ago. Sony would be nothing without the companies that came before it (their attempt at inovation...the banana..lol).

1080pOnly

Equating one thing with another, without a base for comparison is idiotic. Of course they took what was popular with controllers... Look at the Wii-U and the Pro controller.

It's all good though, when they became the market leaders and everyone else was starved of the cash they needed to innovate, they threw away their market lead with a horrible console. They tried to make everyone swallow Bluray, they tried to make everyone suck up the huge price tage, they tried to stay the same because they didn't know what else to do when they had no one to copy. They threw their lead away by failing to produce anything new and now face probable collapse. What a shame.

Hmm, it's late for a brit, I'm off to bed so I'll pick this up in the morning.

1080pOnly

Blu-Ray and HD-DVD were the competitors and Blu-Ray won out due to a larger userbase willing to adopt (more companies backed Blu-Ray in the end).

Yep, they could face a possible collapse for issues brought about this generation. Nobody was arguing that.

Seriously bro, get your sh*t together.

#-16 Posted by CommanderpeaceC (63 posts) -

[QUOTE="CommanderpeaceC"]Not what we are talking about learn to ding read you disabled trash. Two different conversations going on try to keep up with one at a time. (Lol crash was not even 2nd party during the time either your misread response still fails)lundy86_4

What, exactly , is being talked about, then?

Puckhog regarded exclusives from the PS1/PS2/PS3 era.

Were mine from those eras? Check.

You then excluded third party by saying they did "much of anything". This, I disproved by pointing to first and second party, as well.

---

You quoted one conversation. I replied to that conversation, and you came out looking like a tw@t. Well done.

you mean the same post where you forgot the part where is said "THEIR FIRST PARTY did not do much"? Them reading skills.
#-15 Posted by BrunoBRS (73266 posts) -
[QUOTE="BrunoBRS"][QUOTE="1080pOnly"]

They popularised CD as a medium in response to other companies already bringing the medium to market, they did not innovate, they just copied. It is the way of Sony.

Sony's first wide home console release, the PlayStation (codenamed PSX during development, currently PSone), was initially designed to be a CD-ROM drive add-on for Nintendo's Super Nintendo Entertainment System (a.k.a. Super Famicom in Japan) video game console, in response to Sega's Mega-CD. When the prospect of releasing the system as an add-on dissolved, Sony redesigned the machine into a stand alone unit.

clyde46
oh believe me, i know the whole story. but nintendo rejected it on the SNES and rejected it again on the N64, and the sega CD was a catastrophe. no one wanted to mess with CDs anymore. at the end of the day, it doesn't matter who did first, it matters who did right. sony merely took the tech they were developing for nintendo and released a system. i repeat: the SNES CD technology was developed by sony, and sony merely released what nintendo rejected.

Didnt Sony and Nintendo have a dispute over money that caused one party to break the contract?

nintendo tried to screw sony over (i won't bother looking up the technicalities though), and it backfired. then the PS1 launched, and then people realized that "backfiring" was quite an understatement. but at the end of the day, nintendo hired sony to make a CD peripheral, then it went wrong. they tried with phillips, and it went wrong again. then they just gave up on it until the gamecube launched, because during the PS1 era they lost a crapton of third party support (goodbye, final fantasy) because CDs were immensely cheaper to produce and allowed to store far more data.
#-14 Posted by clyde46 (47602 posts) -

[QUOTE="lundy86_4"]

[QUOTE="CommanderpeaceC"]Not what we are talking about learn to ding read you disabled trash. Two different conversations going on try to keep up with one at a time. (Lol crash was not even 2nd party during the time either your misread response still fails)CommanderpeaceC

What, exactly , is being talked about, then?

Puckhog regarded exclusives from the PS1/PS2/PS3 era.

Were mine from those eras? Check.

You then excluded third party by saying they did "much of anything". This, I disproved by pointing to first and second party, as well.

---

You quoted one conversation. I replied to that conversation, and you came out looking like a tw@t. Well done.

you mean the same post where you forgot the part where is said "THEIR FIRST PARTY did not do much"? Them reading skills.

Them spelling and grammar skills.

#-13 Posted by lundy86_4 (44340 posts) -

you mean the same post where you forgot the part where is said "THEIR FIRST PARTY did not do much"? Them reading skills.CommanderpeaceC

Actually, the exact quote was...

THEIR exclusives? Did not much of anything. Third party however.CommanderpeaceC

Yep, them reading skills :lol:

----

Oh God, schooled SO HARD!!

#-12 Posted by DJ-Lafleur (34324 posts) -

WRONG!!!

...

They made the PS1 and PS2.

#-11 Posted by NineTailedGoku (1977 posts) -

I agree to a point. I do not wish Sony to go away but they really have not brought anything. They have had some good games but that is because of the developers not Sony. Naughty Dog for example was making some great games and Sony bought them but it is not like Sony the company made those games but instead it was the people from Naughty Dog.

CanYouDiglt

If Sony didnt contribute anything, MS sure as hell didnt contribute anything either. Nice logic, youre not doing lemmings any favors by posting. I guess MS made Halo, Gears, and Forza plus all the Xbox games huh? Turn 10, Epic, and Bungie had jack Sh1t to do with it. Yes yes, it was all MSs doing. What a dumbass.

#-10 Posted by AmazonTreeBoa (16745 posts) -

Sony, the great pretender. The stealer of ideas and destroyer of the sacred. They have brought nothing new to gaming, they tried to turn 'game' consoles into 'home entertainment' movie players, they tried and failed to emulate the PC in a 'closed' environment. Simply awful.

The fathers of gaming were (in no particular order) Atari, Microsoft1080pOnly

I stopped reading right there....What an idiot.

#-9 Posted by CommanderpeaceC (63 posts) -
@Lundy Yeah self own age . Notice the word THEIR? Damn did you parent regret you that much they damaged your brain trying to remove you but got caught and allow you to humiliate yourself?
#-8 Posted by Blabadon (28502 posts) -
[QUOTE="CommanderpeaceC"]@Lundy Yeah self own age . Notice the word THEIR? Damn did you parent regret you that much they damaged your brain trying to remove you but got caught and allow you to humiliate yourself?

What the hell did I just read...
#-7 Posted by lundy86_4 (44340 posts) -

@Lundy Yeah self own age . Notice the word THEIR? Damn did you parent regret you that much they damaged your brain trying to remove you but got caught and allow you to humiliate yourself?CommanderpeaceC

Exclusives are automatically implied as being their own. Exclusives are exclusives. They are on one system. Do you want to continue acting like a f*cking idiot?

Dude, your argument has crumbled to pieces :lol:

#-6 Posted by lundy86_4 (44340 posts) -

[QUOTE="CommanderpeaceC"]@Lundy Yeah self own age . Notice the word THEIR? Damn did you parent regret you that much they damaged your brain trying to remove you but got caught and allow you to humiliate yourself?Blabadon
What the hell did I just read...

I don't know... It was bad.

#-4 Posted by AmazonTreeBoa (16745 posts) -
. clyde46
You just reminded me of a saying I learned as a kid. Deck the halls with gasoline....Falalalala lalalala Light a match and watch it gleem....Falalalala lalalala Watch the school house burn to ashes.....Falalalala lalalala Aren't you glad you played with matches......Falalalala lalalala :P
#-2 Posted by mjf249 (2894 posts) -
Why would you want only two companies in the hardware business? Competition is a plus.
#-1 Posted by lundy86_4 (44340 posts) -

The same quote separated third party exclusives. It's like teaching a 2 year old to read with down synd. you can't even read two full sentences?CommanderpeaceC

I know it did. As noted in my previous statements:|

You then excluded third party by saying they did "much of anything". This, I disproved by pointing to first and second party,as well.

lundy86_4

See that quote ^^? Learn to read, b*tch.Apparently, you can't :lol: