Doesn't stop little kids from getting mommy to pay for a new one.LOUD-TREE wrote:Nothing like that at all. You dont HAVE to rebuy a GBA SP or a GBM if you already own a GBA, because they wont BREAK ON PURPOSE TO MAKE A QUICK BUCK!plasticwingsband wrote:Sorta like how Nintendo re-releases the GameBoy whenever they need some more "money in the bank," right?LOUD-TREE wrote:God, I honestly think sony defects their consoles, so that when little billy can't play is launch date PS2 anymore because it can't read new disks, mommy has to go out and buy a brand new one. Money in the bank.
Sony in financial trouble?
-
- ASSMAN
- Posts: 1340
- Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 6:53 pm
- Location: Buttse.cx!
- Contact:
- Baba O'Reily
- ABBA BANNED
- Posts: 3339
- Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:26 pm
- Location: http://zenixstudios.com/files/ 554SpaceIsThePlace.Mp3
- Contact:
As much indifference I have towards Sonic they aren't the root of all evil. To be fair I've had nil problems with my PS2 and it being my first Sony console that’s good. I didn't like the silver, slimmer or pimped out PS2 so I ignored them because they couldn't play more games than I could on my humble regular one.
It's the anti-sony side of me... Sorry.Baba O'Reily wrote:LOUD-TREE, I'm trying very hard to like you, but you make it so hard for me to do so.
I just wish it was like the good old days, when it was Nintendo v.s. Sega; the only two companies that aren't in it just for the money.
but hell, what're gonna do, eh? I'll just shut up.
Some of the people within the companies are less inclined to be in it "for the money," though.
I think people, misguided or not, tend to be easier on Nintendo and Sega because their focus is on software development. You have these personalities within the company, like Yu Suzuki or Miyamoto, who are respected as artists and visionairies because they make great games, rather than the boxes that run them. It's easier to feel like the software is the priority, and the consoles are just being made to run it.
Companies like Sony and MS are different, of course, since they start with the hardware first and then go looking for developers. Even their first party software is generally being made by semi-independent groups that they either purchased or contracted, and all those games would probably just move to a different console if Sony folded. There's less to get sentimental about, since all you really associate with them is a piece of hardware.
I think people, misguided or not, tend to be easier on Nintendo and Sega because their focus is on software development. You have these personalities within the company, like Yu Suzuki or Miyamoto, who are respected as artists and visionairies because they make great games, rather than the boxes that run them. It's easier to feel like the software is the priority, and the consoles are just being made to run it.
Companies like Sony and MS are different, of course, since they start with the hardware first and then go looking for developers. Even their first party software is generally being made by semi-independent groups that they either purchased or contracted, and all those games would probably just move to a different console if Sony folded. There's less to get sentimental about, since all you really associate with them is a piece of hardware.
I said they aren't in it just for the money. I admit money is apart of it, but I believe it's much bigger than that for Nintendo and Sega.Delphine wrote:...dude, you do realize that all companies are in it for the money, seeing as how they are a business, and business is primarily about making money? Yes? If they weren't in it for the money, why not give the games away for free? Why not donate all excess profit to charity?
You know, I love all consoles and have no bias towards anyone in the gaming industry, but... why am I feeling like it's 1995 all over again?
Let's go back to 1985 for a bit. The gaming industry was completely molested by Atari, and all candles of the gaming faith were blown out. That is, until a little box known as the Famicom / Nintendo Entertainment System launched and changed everything... for better or worse.
Fast forward about six years later. The NES had become the most successful gaming console ever, and Nintendo launched its predecessor, the SNES. Although a wonderful system with the greatest gaming library ever, it was weakened when better technology became available; the CD format and 3D graphics.
Nintendo thought they had owned the world, and laughed in the faces of all. That is, until 1995, when the giant known as Sony stepped into the spotlight, ready to save us from generic 2D platformers and the expensive cartridge format. They launched the PlayStation.
Nintendo had to compete, and they released the Nintendo 64. Nintendo was hesitant of change, and stayed with the cartridge format and went with a bad controller design (although it was the best console controller for first-person shooters at the time).
The Nintendo 64 certainly had some incredible games, but they just weren't diverse enough. The PlayStation had already set a new standard in gaming, and Sony has ruled the market until this day.
Then 2000 slowly approached. The PlayStation 2 was upon us, along with the Nintendo 64's successor, the GameCube and a new console; the Xbox. As the PlayStation 2 launched with a weak library of games, it quickly became the number one console to own, and in the long run, crushed the GameCube and Xbox's sales.
But now, as the next generation is fast approaching, Sony believes they own the world, and laughs in the faces of all. The PlayStation 3 will feature the unproven Blu-Ray DVD format. Will it catch on as Sony hopes?
With the Xbox 360 coming, will it prove online gaming is the future? Will Sony have a poor online service yet again? Will fans ditch Sony because of the boomerang controller? Will the Xbox 360 have a more diverse library due to the console supposedly being the most developer-friendly?
Sony seems to be eerily similar to Nintendo this decade. Atari was the first video game dynasty in the '70s, then Nintendo in 1985, then Sony in 1995... now, will it be Microsoft with the Xbox 360 in 2005?
It's an interesting pattern, nonetheless.
Let's go back to 1985 for a bit. The gaming industry was completely molested by Atari, and all candles of the gaming faith were blown out. That is, until a little box known as the Famicom / Nintendo Entertainment System launched and changed everything... for better or worse.
Fast forward about six years later. The NES had become the most successful gaming console ever, and Nintendo launched its predecessor, the SNES. Although a wonderful system with the greatest gaming library ever, it was weakened when better technology became available; the CD format and 3D graphics.
Nintendo thought they had owned the world, and laughed in the faces of all. That is, until 1995, when the giant known as Sony stepped into the spotlight, ready to save us from generic 2D platformers and the expensive cartridge format. They launched the PlayStation.
Nintendo had to compete, and they released the Nintendo 64. Nintendo was hesitant of change, and stayed with the cartridge format and went with a bad controller design (although it was the best console controller for first-person shooters at the time).
The Nintendo 64 certainly had some incredible games, but they just weren't diverse enough. The PlayStation had already set a new standard in gaming, and Sony has ruled the market until this day.
Then 2000 slowly approached. The PlayStation 2 was upon us, along with the Nintendo 64's successor, the GameCube and a new console; the Xbox. As the PlayStation 2 launched with a weak library of games, it quickly became the number one console to own, and in the long run, crushed the GameCube and Xbox's sales.
But now, as the next generation is fast approaching, Sony believes they own the world, and laughs in the faces of all. The PlayStation 3 will feature the unproven Blu-Ray DVD format. Will it catch on as Sony hopes?
With the Xbox 360 coming, will it prove online gaming is the future? Will Sony have a poor online service yet again? Will fans ditch Sony because of the boomerang controller? Will the Xbox 360 have a more diverse library due to the console supposedly being the most developer-friendly?
Sony seems to be eerily similar to Nintendo this decade. Atari was the first video game dynasty in the '70s, then Nintendo in 1985, then Sony in 1995... now, will it be Microsoft with the Xbox 360 in 2005?
It's an interesting pattern, nonetheless.
- Segaholic2
- Forum God
- Posts: 3516
- Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 11:28 am
I just think the extra lead time they have is going to really hurt Sony this time around. I don't think it's going to be a similar situation to the DC... Microsoft has the marketing budget and the reputation to make a good use of the extra time. Plus, they're launching near the holiday season, when people are most likely to make these kind of purchases, and they are probably launching at a lower price than the PS3. I think all of those things are going to take a big chunk out of Sony's market share.
- Squirrelknight
- Utada wants me so much
- Posts: 564
- Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 3:01 pm
- Location: The O.C., bitch.
- Contact:
I really hope the 360 overtakes the PS3 in terms of popularity... Not because I like Microsoft (which I don't), but because Sony needs some fucking competition. Nintendo seems content to do their own thing and ignore the rest of the universe, so Sony really needs a real rival. The 16-bit generation was great because Sega and Nintendo were on equal ground, constantly trying to get one over on each other. Maybe once Sony realizes they aren't untouchable they'll regain their sanity and realize people won't mortgage their houses to buy a PS3 or convert their music collection to shitty-ass ATRAC3. Sony is getting complacent, and Microsoft could really shake them up in a good way.
Of course, I don't want Microsoft to get a monopoly on the games industry either, cause then they'd be worse than Sony. The ideal situation would be to have all 3 companies be neck-and-neck, but that's obviously not going to happen.
Of course, I don't want Microsoft to get a monopoly on the games industry either, cause then they'd be worse than Sony. The ideal situation would be to have all 3 companies be neck-and-neck, but that's obviously not going to happen.
- Tsuyoshi-kun
- Posts: 946
- Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2004 11:33 am
- Location: Philadelphia, PA, U.S.A.
i'm not so sure i agree. yes, it would be nice if Sony had a rival to get them to actually care about what they're doing. but i wouldn't want it to be microsoft.Squirrelknight wrote:I really hope the 360 overtakes the PS3 in terms of popularity... Not because I like Microsoft (which I don't), but because Sony needs some fucking competition. Nintendo seems content to do their own thing and ignore the rest of the universe, so Sony really needs a real rival. The 16-bit generation was great because Sega and Nintendo were on equal ground, constantly trying to get one over on each other. Maybe once Sony realizes they aren't untouchable they'll regain their sanity and realize people won't mortgage their houses to buy a PS3 or convert their music collection to shitty-ass ATRAC3. Sony is getting complacent, and Microsoft could really shake them up in a good way.
Of course, I don't want Microsoft to get a monopoly on the games industry either, cause then they'd be worse than Sony. The ideal situation would be to have all 3 companies be neck-and-neck, but that's obviously not going to happen.
Microsoft started out doing computers. now that its got the XBox, all it seems to be doing is promoting the systems online abilities. which says to me that they're re-inventing the computer. think of it this way; Microsoft makes computer crap; computers can play games (online or not), use microsoft word, spreadsheets, calenders, so on and so forth; the XBox only does the games. coming from such a company, it's like saying "well, let's make a machine. it's like a computer, except it can only do one thing because we stripped away other features". maybe i'm wrong here, but this is how i feel.
I see it more as them thinking "Well, we already dominate the PC market what next? Oh, There's a load of money to be made in console gaming, lets get us a bit of that."
Personally I like my X-Box. I like the fact it plays 3rd party games better than the PS2, has a hard drive and can play online. It's why I'm getting a 360. A good experiance with one console means I trust them and like them.
The thing is if the PS3 does what the 360 can as well as or even better Microsoft are in trouble.
Personally I like my X-Box. I like the fact it plays 3rd party games better than the PS2, has a hard drive and can play online. It's why I'm getting a 360. A good experiance with one console means I trust them and like them.
The thing is if the PS3 does what the 360 can as well as or even better Microsoft are in trouble.