Sony pretty much saved gaming this generation

  • 182 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#151 Posted by FoxbatAlpha (5885 posts) -

Sony didn't save anything. I would agree that the cow population is destroying it though.

#152 Edited by casharmy (6813 posts) -

@Seabas989:

@Seabas989 said:

Wait when did gaming need saving?

When MS announced a requirement for always online connected status to play games and no used games policy! Because of Sony, that scheme is in the trash.

If Sony wasn't around with their system and policies to counter act what they did by going the opposite direction and publicly taking a stance against it...what MS has planned would be a reality now. It would have been a disaster and every other gaming platform there after would have followed suit.

#153 Edited by Duckyindiana (2288 posts) -

Erm the only thing Sony saved this gen was itself from possibly going bankrupt!

#154 Edited by Dog (37 posts) -

^ This.

#156 Edited by reaver-x (2794 posts) -

couldnt agree more. 360 has been irrelevant since 2010 when they started to put all there eggs in one basket with the kinect and got them no where. Which is precisely the reason i wont be buying xbone cause i cannot trust MS to keep there eye on the ball

#157 Posted by cainetao11 (15841 posts) -

Wait when did gaming need saving?

And that is the truth. An industry that this gen grew, and it was somehow in danger of dying? WTF are cows talking about?

#158 Edited by cainetao11 (15841 posts) -

@Lumpy311 said:
@casharmy said:

@Seabas989:

@Seabas989 said:

Wait when did gaming need saving?

When MS announced a requirement for always online connected status to play games and no used games policy! Because of Sony, that scheme is in the trash.

If Sony wasn't around with their system and policies to counter act what they did by going the opposite direction and publicly taking a stance against it...what MS has planned would be a reality now. It would have been a disaster and every other gaming platform there after would have followed suit.

No, you fucking moron, because of the gamers, that scheme is in the trash, you think Sony wouldn't have followed with DRM if it worked for Microsoft? Lmao, fuck off.

What are you talking about? PSN is the place where mp will always be free.....oh wait.

#159 Posted by Rocker6 (13358 posts) -

@casharmy said:

@Seabas989:

@Seabas989 said:

Wait when did gaming need saving?

When MS announced a requirement for always online connected status to play games and no used games policy! Because of Sony, that scheme is in the trash.

If Sony wasn't around with their system and policies to counter act what they did by going the opposite direction and publicly taking a stance against it...what MS has planned would be a reality now. It would have been a disaster and every other gaming platform there after would have followed suit.

Doubtful. The consumers were already in uproar over X1 original policies, and Sony decided to capitalize on that.

If there was no consumer uproar regarding X1 restrictive policies, good chance Sony would've followed suit. Contrary to the popular SW Cow belief, they're just another business, and businesses love DRM.

Ultimately, if anyone "saved" gaming, it was... the gamers themselves. Shocking, huh?

#160 Posted by Caseytappy (2111 posts) -

@Lumpy311 said:

No, you fucking moron, because of the gamers, that scheme is in the trash, you think Sony wouldn't have followed with DRM if it worked for Microsoft? Lmao, fuck off.

Relax Dude , you are not on the old site !

#161 Posted by blackace (19732 posts) -

This thread is a joke. Sony needs to worry about their Electronics division. Samsung, Panasonic, LG and several other companies are taking tons of their market shares in the electronics busy. Let's see if Sony sells anymore buildings within the next 2 yrs.

#162 Posted by BreadNMilk (37 posts) -

@blackace:

This thread is not a joke. Sony embarresed MS at E3 about their DRM, used games limitation and in turn MS changed their policies back to normal.

Without Sony MS would have made X1 the worst anti-consumer console in gaming history. And Nintendo's Wii U is terrible. So while you game on your X1 without mandatory Kinect spying on you, no DRM, and you can rent games and buy used games without extra fees you'll know what company prevented those from being reality. And we'll never know what else MS would have done in addition to these because now they know people will buy Sony's consoles instead.

#163 Edited by NameIess_One (559 posts) -

@blackace:

This thread is not a joke. Sony embarresed MS at E3 about their DRM, used games limitation and in turn MS changed their policies back to normal.

Without Sony MS would have made X1 the worst anti-consumer console in gaming history. And Nintendo's Wii U is terrible. So while you game on your X1 without mandatory Kinect spying on you, no DRM, and you can rent games and buy used games without extra fees you'll know what company prevented those from being reality. And we'll never know what else MS would have done in addition to these because now they know people will buy Sony's consoles instead.

No, it was gamers themselves who prevented all that.

We don't have to thank anyone but ourselves, really. If gamers silently accepted original MS policies, Sony would've been more than happy to follow suit.

#164 Posted by BreadNMilk (37 posts) -

@NameIess_One:

You just proved my point. Sony is forced to follow bad practices by MS to stay competitive. Paying for online being the latest one. MS being the more successful than Sony in America is bad for gaming. Without Sony being around to keep MS in check MS would make gaming terrible. Fact is when Sony is on top gaming stays good. When MS becomes too successful they start going full steam ahead with ruining gaming.

#165 Posted by Caseytappy (2111 posts) -

@blackace:

This thread is not a joke. Sony embarresed MS at E3 about their DRM, used games limitation and in turn MS changed their policies back to normal.

Without Sony MS would have made X1 the worst anti-consumer console in gaming history. And Nintendo's Wii U is terrible. So while you game on your X1 without mandatory Kinect spying on you, no DRM, and you can rent games and buy used games without extra fees you'll know what company prevented those from being reality. And we'll never know what else MS would have done in addition to these because now they know people will buy Sony's consoles instead.

You are wrong !

Sony watched conveniently at the side and never where clear even once about their plans beforehand .

MS took the heat as they should and once the outcome was clear Sony suddenly showed their stance on it but history shows Sony already tried to pull of a MS in the music industry with their root kit fiasco and felt the wrath of the consumer so they where smart one this time .

If MS had pulled it off without consumer resistance you are a fool to think Sony wouldn't followed the same path .

#166 Edited by casharmy (6813 posts) -

@Caseytappy said:

@Lumpy311 said:

No, you fucking moron, because of the gamers, that scheme is in the trash, you think Sony wouldn't have followed with DRM if it worked for Microsoft? Lmao, fuck off.

Relax Dude , you are not on the old site !

it's ok, I aint even mad.

For some people on here, it is an attack on their person, if someone makes an unfaltering statement about the company they pledge loyalty to. More xbox fanboys seem to show that tendency than sony fans at least when it comes to accepting facts that are black and white.

BTW: to objectors who have said that it was consumers and not sony...that is incorrect. Consumer out cry alone did nothing to change MS's mind on this topic.

Don’t Like the Xbox One’s Internet Requirements? Don Mattrick Says Buy the Xbox 360

http://www.geekosystem.com/don-mattrick-buy-360/

When MS first presented xbox 1 and their policies they told gamers to "deal with it" and that the things they had were built into the makeup of xbox 1 and couldn't be changed.

Without sony presenting an option or another console that denounced the policies MS had in place and having the public recognize the differences make a choice with their dollars to overwhelmingly choose pre-order PS4 over xbox 1, MS would NOT have changed anything.

If Sony had followed MS and implemented the same policies in PS4 (which they could have) MS would not have changed anything.

Sorry Lumpy and all the other guys who rode your coat tails, that is the way it is, and that is the way the entirety of the gaming world sees it as well...but feel free to call me more names and rage some more.

#167 Edited by BreadNMilk (37 posts) -

@casharmy:

Lems are so far in denial of what MS is that they can't see the cold hard facts when laid out in front of them.

They like the Xbox no matter what and defend the bad practices of the losers running MS's Xbox division.

#168 Edited by blackace (19732 posts) -

@blackace:

This thread is not a joke. Sony embarresed MS at E3 about their DRM, used games limitation and in turn MS changed their policies back to normal.

Without Sony MS would have made X1 the worst anti-consumer console in gaming history. And Nintendo's Wii U is terrible. So while you game on your X1 without mandatory Kinect spying on you, no DRM, and you can rent games and buy used games without extra fees you'll know what company prevented those from being reality. And we'll never know what else MS would have done in addition to these because now they know people will buy Sony's consoles instead.

Actually Microsoft did exactly what they said they would do at the E3. Show games. They didn't even talk about the policies at the E3. Sony didn't prevent anything. It was the outcry from gamers that caused Microsoft to change the policies. Sony did nothing but sit on the sideline and watch. If all those policies were embraced Sony would have joined the club. lol!! People will be buying the XB1 as well. They've already sold out of their Day One preorders at Gamestop and Amazon like 3 times. Microsoft keep allocating more systems. Now Microsoft is Touring the World with the XB1 and Sony is again, on the sideline quiet. No tours. No comments. No hardware except at the Apartment 4 lounge for media/press and industry execs.

http://www.vg247.com/2013/09/30/xbox-one-world-tour-starting-october-1-play-in-a-city-near-you-soon/

When is Sony going to put the PS4 and the DH4 in gamers hands so we can test the games for ourselves? I'll be gaming on BOTH systems unlike trolling cows like yourself.

#169 Posted by Rocker6 (13358 posts) -

@casharmy said:

BTW: to objectors who have said that it was consumers and not sony...that is incorrect. Consumer out cry alone did nothing to change MS's mind on this topic.

Don’t Like the Xbox One’s Internet Requirements? Don Mattrick Says Buy the Xbox 360

http://www.geekosystem.com/don-mattrick-buy-360/

When MS first presented xbox 1 and their policies they told gamers to "deal with it" and that the things they had were built into the makeup of xbox 1 and couldn't be changed.

Without sony presenting an option or another console that denounced the policies MS had in place and having the public recognize the differences make a choice with their dollars to overwhelmingly choose pre-order PS4 over xbox 1, MS would NOT have changed anything.

If Sony had followed MS and implemented the same policies in PS4 (which they could have) MS would not have changed anything.

Sorry Lumpy and all the other guys who rode your coat tails, that is the way it is, and that is the way the entirety of the gaming world sees it as well...but feel free to call me more names and rage some more.

It's not about what they said, it's about what they did, and that is scrapping most, if not all of the original policies. That quote you listed is irrelevant, since it was made before the "180" move by MS.

Consumer backlash against the X1 started as soon as some more credible rumors started flying in about the restrictive nature of the system, Sony only offered a product which catered to the consumer demands. If there was no consumer backlash, Sony would've followed MS.

Think whatever you want, Sony, MS, they're all just large, faceless corporations who aren't concerned with your love for gaming, but with your wallet.

#170 Posted by blackace (19732 posts) -

@casharmy:

Lems are so far in denial of what MS is that they can't see the cold hard facts when laid out in front of them.

They like the Xbox no matter what and defend the bad practices of the losers running MS's Xbox division.

Cows should know all about that. They did the same thing with the PS3. lol!! $600 game console. Cows praise it. Removal of PS2 B/C and Linux. Cows praise it. Sony charges a fee for multiplayer on PS4. Cows praise Sony (after bashing XBL over the last 10yrs). LMAO!! Cows have been in denial the whole last generation. Now please sit down and shut up.

#171 Edited by casharmy (6813 posts) -

@Rocker6 said:

@casharmy said:

BTW: to objectors who have said that it was consumers and not sony...that is incorrect. Consumer out cry alone did nothing to change MS's mind on this topic.

Don’t Like the Xbox One’s Internet Requirements? Don Mattrick Says Buy the Xbox 360

http://www.geekosystem.com/don-mattrick-buy-360/

When MS first presented xbox 1 and their policies they told gamers to "deal with it" and that the things they had were built into the makeup of xbox 1 and couldn't be changed.

Without sony presenting an option or another console that denounced the policies MS had in place and having the public recognize the differences make a choice with their dollars to overwhelmingly choose pre-order PS4 over xbox 1, MS would NOT have changed anything.

If Sony had followed MS and implemented the same policies in PS4 (which they could have) MS would not have changed anything.

Sorry Lumpy and all the other guys who rode your coat tails, that is the way it is, and that is the way the entirety of the gaming world sees it as well...but feel free to call me more names and rage some more.

It's not about what they said, it's about what they did, and that is scrapping most, if not all of the original policies. That quote you listed is irrelevant, since it was made before the "180" move by MS.

Consumer backlash against the X1 started as soon as some more credible rumors started flying in about the restrictive nature of the system, Sony only offered a product which catered to the consumer demands. If there was no consumer backlash, Sony would've followed MS.

Think whatever you want, Sony, MS, they're all just large, faceless corporations who aren't concerned with your love for gaming, but with your wallet.

Love, has nothing to do with any part of my argument.

Also your rebuttal makes no sense. Of course the post I have predates MS's 180 move. It demonstrates MS's attitude toward the "consumer backlash" that you and other tired to use as the reason for MS's reversal but the link I posted was MS's response to that...(above)

and shows why that argument fails.

MS was all in with their original plans and were not going to change regardless of who objected because they figured the market share they got with 360 enough or gamers were just that dedicated to their platform but because they were getting blown away by Sony in pre-orders and bad PR largely inflated by Sony's stance against their policies, MS folded to remain relevant compared to Sony and ADOPTED the sony "we are all about games attitude" and DROPPED the previous requirements.

You need to accept and deal with that despite what feel. In reality it doesn't matter what you want to believe, without Sony there would have been no 180 move by MS and that was my point.

#173 Edited by Rocker6 (13358 posts) -

@casharmy said:

Love, has nothing to do with any part of my argument.

Also your rebuttal makes no sense. Of course the post I have predates MS's 180 move. It demonstrates MS's attitude toward the "consumer backlash" that you and other tired to use as the reason for MS's reversal but the link I posted was MS's response to that...(above)

and shows why that argument fails.

MS was all in with their original plans and were not going to change regardless of who objected because they figured the market share they got with 360 enough or gamers were just that dedicated to their platform but because they were getting blown away by Sony in pre-orders and bad PR largely inflated by Sony's stance against their policies, MS folded to remain relevant compared to Sony and ADOPTED the sony "we are all about games attitude" and DROPPED the previous requirements.

You need to accept and deal with that despite what feel. In reality it doesn't matter what you want to believe, without Sony there would have been no 180 move by MS and that was my point.

The PR attitude hardly matters, when you take into the consideration MS changed their policies. That's the important stuff, when they saw the consumers aren't willing to put up with their plans, they changed them, in fear of losing money, due to all the bad publicity they were gathering. If we're going to play the PR game, I could find you a whole lot of idiotic statements coming from Sony.

Sony was just here, offering a system considered more acceptable by the consumers, based on the demands coming from the public backlash. Again, with no public backlash, Sony would have no reason not to follow in MS' footsteps.

#174 Posted by DarkLink77 (31683 posts) -

@casharmy said:

@Seabas989:

@Seabas989 said:

Wait when did gaming need saving?

When MS announced a requirement for always online connected status to play games and no used games policy! Because of Sony, that scheme is in the trash.

If Sony wasn't around with their system and policies to counter act what they did by going the opposite direction and publicly taking a stance against it...what MS has planned would be a reality now. It would have been a disaster and every other gaming platform there after would have followed suit.

Doubtful. PC gaming doesn't do that. Neither do Nintendo consoles.

I applaud Sony for doing what they're doing, but acting like the whole industry would have followed Microsoft's lead when they showed no signs of doing so if kind of silly.

#175 Edited by casharmy (6813 posts) -

@Rocker6 said:

@casharmy said:

Love, has nothing to do with any part of my argument.

Also your rebuttal makes no sense. Of course the post I have predates MS's 180 move. It demonstrates MS's attitude toward the "consumer backlash" that you and other tired to use as the reason for MS's reversal but the link I posted was MS's response to that...(above)

and shows why that argument fails.

MS was all in with their original plans and were not going to change regardless of who objected because they figured the market share they got with 360 enough or gamers were just that dedicated to their platform but because they were getting blown away by Sony in pre-orders and bad PR largely inflated by Sony's stance against their policies, MS folded to remain relevant compared to Sony and ADOPTED the sony "we are all about games attitude" and DROPPED the previous requirements.

You need to accept and deal with that despite what feel. In reality it doesn't matter what you want to believe, without Sony there would have been no 180 move by MS and that was my point.

The PR attitude hardly matters, when you take into the consideration MS changed their policies. That's the important stuff, when they saw the consumers aren't willing to put up with their plans, they changed them, in fear of losing money, due to all the bad publicity they were gathering. If we're going to play the PR game, I could find you a whole lot of idiotic statements coming from Sony.

Sony was just here, offering a system considered more acceptable by the consumers, based on the demands coming from the public backlash. Again, with no public backlash, Sony would have no reason not to follow in MS' footsteps.

Your argument now is a non argument. You you have not and can not counter the fact that MS told everyone to "deal with it" or "buy a xbox360" when the public backlash came. The link I provided you is proof and there is more I could provide BEFORE sony announced their counter stance.

Now, whether it's fear of loosing market share or fear of loosing money, it makes no difference since MS would not have "changed" anything **IF** sony adopted the same ideas MS had in mind.

You talk about finding idiotic statements from sony, where does that come into play in this argument? We are talking actions here, did you forget the topic? Try to stay on point.

You are right for saying sony was there offering a system more acceptable by the consumers, but everything else you said that follows were just excuses and "what ifs".

Sony, was not only JUST being there (whether you like it or not) but, taking a direct stance against the policies MS was trying to push with their new console...This is also a fact I can pull up. The outcome of all of this is the reason why MS "changed their tune" so to speak about xbox 1 and the policies MS has in place were dropped.

#176 Edited by Rocker6 (13358 posts) -

@casharmy said:

Your argument now is a non argument. You you have not and can not counter the fact that MS told everyone to "deal with it" or "buy a xbox360" when the public backlash came. The link I provided you is proof and there is more I could provide BEFORE sony announced their counter stance.

Now, whether it's fear of loosing market share or fear of loosing money, it makes no difference since MS would not have "changed" anything **IF** sony adopted the same ideas MS had in mind.

You talk about finding idiotic statements from sony, where does that come into play in this argument? We are talking actions here, did you forget the topic? Try to stay on point.

You are right for saying sony was there offering a system more acceptable by the consumers, but everything else you said that follows were just excuses and "what ifs".

Sony, was not only JUST being there (whether you like it or not) but, taking a direct stance against the policies MS was trying to push with their new console...This is also a fact I can pull up. The outcome of all of this is the reason why MS "changed their tune" so to speak about xbox 1 and the policies MS has in place were dropped.

Of course I can't counter the existence of bad PR, never even tried that. I'm just saying it's irrelevant, since ultimately, MS backed down.

Consumers were the ones taking a direct stance against the MS policies, Sony was just being there, capitalizing on it, using it is a powerful marketing tool. I suppose we can say Sony helped to speed up the process of MS backtracking, but I still stand behind my original statement, how it was the consumers who saved the whole situation, and how Sony would've gladly followed in MS' wake if there was no public backlash.

#177 Edited by casharmy (6813 posts) -

@DarkLink77 said:

@casharmy said:

@Seabas989:

@Seabas989 said:

Wait when did gaming need saving?

When MS announced a requirement for always online connected status to play games and no used games policy! Because of Sony, that scheme is in the trash.

If Sony wasn't around with their system and policies to counter act what they did by going the opposite direction and publicly taking a stance against it...what MS has planned would be a reality now. It would have been a disaster and every other gaming platform there after would have followed suit.

Doubtful. PC gaming doesn't do that. Neither do Nintendo consoles.

I applaud Sony for doing what they're doing, but acting like the whole industry would have followed Microsoft's lead when they showed no signs of doing so if kind of silly.

Console market is different than PC.

Actually many of the ideas that MS wants in place are already common for PC which is one of the reasons why many people prefer consoles over PC. These things wouldn't effect the PC scene as much as consoles and I guess that was my focus.

Many of the things that people hate in the console market that were common dealing with PC (DLC, "paid" online, map packs ect.) were introduced by MS on the xbox platform and because noone took a stance against them they became common. I am not saying those things on PC are bad in and of themselves but the way they were introduced being used to drain as much money from consumers and cutting games in half to sell later to make more money made them bad.

People understood this going forward looking at MS and the policies they wanted introduce with xbox 1. Sony publicly making it clear that they were not going to go that route with their console made a big impact.

#178 Edited by cainetao11 (15841 posts) -

@Rocker6 said:

@casharmy said:

Your argument now is a non argument. You you have not and can not counter the fact that MS told everyone to "deal with it" or "buy a xbox360" when the public backlash came. The link I provided you is proof and there is more I could provide BEFORE sony announced their counter stance.

Now, whether it's fear of loosing market share or fear of loosing money, it makes no difference since MS would not have "changed" anything **IF** sony adopted the same ideas MS had in mind.

You talk about finding idiotic statements from sony, where does that come into play in this argument? We are talking actions here, did you forget the topic? Try to stay on point.

You are right for saying sony was there offering a system more acceptable by the consumers, but everything else you said that follows were just excuses and "what ifs".

Sony, was not only JUST being there (whether you like it or not) but, taking a direct stance against the policies MS was trying to push with their new console...This is also a fact I can pull up. The outcome of all of this is the reason why MS "changed their tune" so to speak about xbox 1 and the policies MS has in place were dropped.

Of course I can't counter the existence of bad PR, never even tried that. I'm just saying it's irrelevant, since ultimately, MS backed down.

Consumers were the ones taking a direct stance against the MS policies, Sony was just being there, capitalizing on it, using it is a powerful marketing tool. I suppose we can say Sony helped to speed up the process of MS backtracking, but I still stand behind my original statement, how it was the consumers who saved the whole situation, and how Sony would've gladly followed in MS' wake if there was no public backlash.

Agreed. Sony openly said the would let MS make the first move and react accordingly. Yet cows are praising them as if the brainstormed NOT doing what the gaming consumer base vocally disliked? WTF are cows smoking? A monkey would have done the opposite of what the masses were yelling is bad. Cows want to claim without Sony gaming would be going that route? No, without US, gaming would be going that route. It's like saying without MS, Sony wouldn't be making there console online, or charging $600 or more for there console. No, Sony charges less then $600 this time because of US, the gamers that didn't want to pay that for a console.

#179 Posted by s_h_a_d_o (1266 posts) -

@casharmy said:


Now, whether it's fear of loosing market share or fear of loosing money, it makes no difference...

FFS!!!

The word is spelled 'losing'.

Honestly, take some of that money you spend on gaming consoles and purchase a basic dictionary. :|

#180 Posted by lundy86_4 (42650 posts) -

@casharmy said:


Now, whether it's fear of loosing market share or fear of loosing money, it makes no difference...

FFS!!!

The word is spelled 'losing'.

Honestly, take some of that money you spend on gaming consoles and purchase a basic dictionary. :|

Happens all the time. So annoying.

#181 Posted by Bigboi500 (28804 posts) -

Not really. Both Nintendo and Microsoft put out enough quality exclusives during the generation to where it didn't need saving by Sony.

#182 Posted by psymon100 (6138 posts) -

lolno

#183 Posted by NameIess_One (559 posts) -

@NameIess_One:

You just proved my point. Sony is forced to follow bad practices by MS to stay competitive. Paying for online being the latest one. MS being the more successful than Sony in America is bad for gaming. Without Sony being around to keep MS in check MS would make gaming terrible. Fact is when Sony is on top gaming stays good. When MS becomes too successful they start going full steam ahead with ruining gaming.

You could say the exact same thing for the PS360 gen.

If there was no MS and Xbox to keep Sony in check, the PS3 would've ended as a total disaster fueled by the arrogance accumulated during the PS2 days... so no, Sony staying on top won't make gaming stay good. Healthy competition between console vendors will make gaming stay good.

#184 Posted by delta3074 (17596 posts) -

SONY didn't save anything, they had trouble saving themselves last generation, overpriced hardware, no AAAE for the first 12 months and it took it 7 years to catch up to the 360 in sales, if anybody saved Gaming last gen it was nintendo with the wii, most sales and most high scoring exclusives.

#185 Posted by mrintro (1354 posts) -

SONY didn't save anything, they had trouble saving themselves last generation, overpriced hardware, no AAAE for the first 12 months and it took it 7 years to catch up to the 360 in sales, if anybody saved Gaming last gen it was nintendo with the wii, most sales and most high scoring exclusives.

so you're judging the PS3 on its first year, but not the 360 or Wii the past 3 or 4 years?

#186 Posted by XxR3m1xInHDn3D (1967 posts) -

Sony are the chosen one agaisnt the evil Microsoft corp.

Why make a boring Sony loving alt? It's so much funner to troll as a lem and more challenging (obviously) and it will help make system wars a better place.