Sony SUCKS!!!

[Iron MikeyJ]

I started this rant in the Nintendo Switch thread, but it's so controversial that I thought it deserves it's own thread, so I am copying and pasting my rant, lol. 

Now before I begin, let me just say that I am NOT SO emotionally invested that I take this super seriously. Frankly, it's just my opinion, and I'm just curious what others will think when they hear what I have to say. It all started because I can't play the Switch at the moment (because my wife is playing Mario, lol). So I'm bored more than anything. Anyways here goes...

 

All this Switch talk was making me want to play it. So when I got home from work (about 1 hour ago), I said to my wife "I'm gonna play the Switch." She said "No your not, I am" lol. Which just helps prove my point, it's a fun system.

 

To take this discussion in a different direction, (even though I did own a PS1) I'll NEVER own another PlayStation system. I even collect consoles, but I refuse to add ANY PlayStations. I have an Atari 2600, NES, Genesis, SNES, Saturn, N64, Dreamcast, Xbox, GameCube, 360, and now a Switch. Not to mention I have a pretty awesome Arcade Machine that has games ranging from actual arcade games, Atari 2600 and 7800, NES, Sega Master System, Genesis, SNES, N64, turbo grafix 16, and MUGEN. All in all its close to 1,000 games. My point in all of this is I AM a loyal gamer, and as such SONY is the enemy. 

Why??? They played a pivotal role in the death of Sega. First it was with the PlayStation 1 over the Sega Saturn. I was one of the few loyal Saturn owners when it was new, and I had a PlayStation as well, and the Saturn was BETTER. SO many Genesis owners jumped ship to Sony at that time, and they have been with them ever since. They DIRECTLY help kill Sega. Then came the Dreamcast. The dreamcast was AMAZING, and again the stupid PS2 killed it. Why??? Because of the stupid DVD player it came with. Not because it was the BETTER system, but because it had a freaking DVD player. So yes, as a longtime Sega fan I FIRMLY blame Sony for the death of Sega. 

Yes Sega caused a lot of its own problems, which plenty of YouTube videos can go into this topic better than I can. But if Sony hadn't decided to jump into the console business, Sega would still be here today. 

Even though Microsoft came to the game also, I view them as more as the successor to Sega, not it's killer. Sony was it's killer, for the reasons I just mentioned. Also seeing as they are an American company, in my mind, they are also like the successor to Atari. So I view them as the company that picked up the slack that Atari and Sega left behind. Sony on the other hand is the company that killed a classic. Honestly I don't even view Sony gamers as true gamers. 

Which I'm not trying to start a flame wars here, it's just how I feel, it's ok that some will disagree with me. But my first system WAS the Atari 7800, before the NES even existed. So I've been gaming a LONG time. I've seen a lot, enough to know Sony IS the enemy, and it's fanboys are NOT true gamers imo. They are the "Johnny come lately" to the gamer lifestyle. 

[arnold layne]

I would trade in my Switch for a PS1. At least the PS1 has original games. 

[bucketfoot]

Sony have basically nailed it from day one and shown the others how it's done. I'm a massive Sega fan and I wish they were still around, the Dreamcast is possibly my favourite ever console but to suggest the PS2 only beat it because it had a DVD player is nonsense, the sheer amount and diversity of it's games is staggering, it would also be in my top 3 consoles. There wasn't much between the 360 and PS3, I own both, but the PS4 has completely blown the Xbox One out of the water, it's exclusives are absolutely frightening.

Also, Nintendo have shown, even with some ups and downs, that it is still possible to compete with Sony and Microsoft, so really, the only thing responsible for the death of Sega, is Sega itself.

[action]

these were my sides as time went on:

1994 - 1997: snes

1997 - 2001: N64 over the PS1. load times were unbearable on the PS1. i have little patience. many great PS1 games were released on the N64: mortal kombat trilogy, duke nukem 3D, doom, quake, V rally, ridge racer, wipeout, destruction derby, resident evil 2

2002 - 2006: gamecube and PS2 combo. if a game released on both systems, i chose the gamecube version due to: deeper colours, less load times, better framerate. I needed the PS2 for stuff like MGS 2 - 3 which can't be ignored, the GTA series, and quirky stuff like jaws unleashed, predator concrete jungle (man i played this game to DEATH), castlevania  lament of innocence, terminator dawn of fate, indiana jones, killzone

2006 - march 2017: PS3. I bought a wii too, but that was a major letdown. i dont know how many goddamn controller options the wii (and WiiU) had, but all i asked was to be able to play games with the pro controller and nintendo just said no. Wii is the absolute worst console EVER.

march 2017 - current: switch exclusively. Considered the PS4 at one point, but i waited for that one game (MGS5 was on the PS3 too) that would convince me. i waited, and waited, and... nothing but cinematic experiences. i dont miss the PS4 and still nothing on the thing that makes me want it. as a married man you need to make choices and so the switch it was. haven't regretted it for a second ever since. the switch experience, everything from buying it at launch day, opening the box, admiring the brilliant design and quirkyness. hand to heart, best nintendo console since the N64. I have the N64 hooked up and ready to play, but the switch is just too damn fun. Over 100 hours of ultra street fighter II, zelda, skyrim, splatoon, mario kart... there is so much and all of it is awesome.

Edited February 18, 2018 by action

[Dazey]

2 hours ago, bucketfoot said:

Sony have basically nailed it from day one and shown the others how it's done. I'm a massive Sega fan and I wish they were still around, the Dreamcast is possibly my favourite ever console but to suggest the PS2 only beat it because it had a DVD player is nonsense, the sheer amount and diversity of it's games is staggering, it would also be in my top 3 consoles. There wasn't much between the 360 and PS3, I own both, but the PS4 has completely blown the Xbox One out of the water, it's exclusives are absolutely frightening.

Also, Nintendo have shown, even with some ups and downs, that it is still possible to compete with Sony and Microsoft, so really, the only thing responsible for the death of Sega, is Sega itself.

The PS2 spanked the Dreamcast because PS1. It's that simple. Sony killed it with the PS1 so I'm not sure where the PS2 hate comes from. If anything I'd be directing my ire at the PS1 were I so inclined and even then Sega dropped the ball on that one by not appreciating the significance of 3D gaming with the Saturn. Were I to go a step further you could even argue that Nintendo killed Sega because if they hadn't pulled out of the SNES CD deal with Sony the Playstation would never have been born. So yeah, basically the Dreamcast failed because Nintendo fucked Sony in 1991.

Edited February 18, 2018 by Dazey

[Iron MikeyJ]

1 hour ago, bucketfoot said:

Sony have basically nailed it from day one and shown the others how it's done. I'm a massive Sega fan and I wish they were still around, the Dreamcast is possibly my favourite ever console but to suggest the PS2 only beat it because it had a DVD player is nonsense, the sheer amount and diversity of it's games is staggering, it would also be in my top 3 consoles. There wasn't much between the 360 and PS3, I own both, but the PS4 has completely blown the Xbox One out of the water, it's exclusives are absolutely frightening.

Also, Nintendo have shown, even with some ups and downs, that it is still possible to compete with Sony and Microsoft, so really, the only thing responsible for the death of Sega, is Sega itself.

Not true in regards to the PS2, it's pretty much a FACT that main success behind that system WAS in fact the DVD player, not the gaming function. It was a gimmick system just as much as the Wii was. Had the PS2 not been the massive success it was for Sony, I don't believe the PS3 and PS4 even exist. Which again, it was the freaking DVD player that pushed the sales of it. 

As for Sega vs Sony, it's a another video game historical fact that Sony stole Segas market share. It was first with the Saturn vs PS1. Now to be fair to Sony, they did do some things right during that generation, by pushing gaming into 3d vs 2d where they had always been before. But the N64 was the real KING of 3d gaming for that generation. The Sega Saturn was never meant to be a 3d gaming system, but it was (and still is) the greatest 2d gaming system ever. That's why it has aged better than the PS1. Nobody in the right mind wants to play PS1 games anymore, games have improved millions in the 3d capabilities since the PS1. While the Sega Saturn still has a loyal following due to the fact it was capable of playing arcade perfect games, at home. Neither the N64 or the PS1 could claim that. The N64 had some amazing games though (Ocarana of time) which has allowed it to also have a loyal following to this day. PS1... NOPE.

Then comes the next generation. Sega tried and succeeded to reclaim it's position with the Dreamcast. For about 2 years the Dreamcast was THE system to own. It made the N64 and PS1 look lame by comparison. Then Sony struck back with the PS2 (with it's dvd player). Everybody ran to go and buy it, because it was CHEAPER than buying an actual DVD player. It's the most overrated system in the history of gaming, and it's the system that Sony really built their legacy on. Sega already announced the discontinuation of the Dreamcast BEFORE either the Xbox or GameCube were even released. It was the PS2 that killed them, because of its dvd player. 

So you Sony fanboys, when you talk about how great Sony is, remember it's a dvd player that built your success, not games. You mock Nintendo for being gimmicky, yet your company started the gimmick trend. Honestly I've yet to see a generation where Sony has clearly won. They might have won in the sales department (PS1, PS2) but those systems have aged the WORST of their generation. Xbox 360 handily beat the PS3. And I'm calling it now, the Switch is the winner of the current generation. It innovated.

[Dazey]

25 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

Not true in regards to the PS2, it's pretty much a FACT that main success behind that system WAS in fact the DVD player, not the gaming function. It was a gimmick system just as much as the Wii was. Had the PS2 not been the massive success it was for Sony, I don't believe the PS3 and PS4 even exist. Which again, it was the freaking DVD player that pushed the sales of it. 

As for Sega vs Sony, it's a another video game historical fact that Sony stole Segas market share. It was first with the Saturn vs PS1. Now to be fair to Sony, they did do some things right during that generation, by pushing gaming into 3d vs 2d where they had always been before. But the N64 was the real KING of 3d gaming for that generation. The Sega Saturn was never meant to be a 3d gaming system, but it was (and still is) the greatest 2d gaming system ever. That's why it has aged better than the PS1. Nobody in the right mind wants to play PS1 games anymore, games have improved millions in the 3d capabilities since the PS1. While the Sega Saturn still has a loyal following due to the fact it was capable of playing arcade perfect games, at home. Neither the N64 or the PS1 could claim that. The N64 had some amazing games though (Ocarana of time) which has allowed it to also have a loyal following to this day. PS1... NOPE.

Then comes the next generation. Sega tried and succeeded to reclaim it's position with the Dreamcast. For about 2 years the Dreamcast was THE system to own. It made the N64 and PS1 look lame by comparison. Then Sony struck back with the PS2 (with it's dvd player). Everybody ran to go and buy it, because it was CHEAPER than buying an actual DVD player. It's the most overrated system in the history of gaming, and it's the system that Sony really built their legacy on. Sega already announced the discontinuation of the Dreamcast BEFORE either the Xbox or GameCube were even released. It was the PS2 that killed them, because of its dvd player. 

So you Sony fanboys, when you talk about how great Sony is, remember it's a dvd player that built your success, not games. You mock Nintendo for being gimmicky, yet your company started the gimmick trend. Honestly I've yet to see a generation where Sony has clearly won. They might have won in the sales department (PS1, PS2) but those systems have aged the WORST of their generation. Xbox 360 handily beat the PS3. And I'm calling it now, the Switch is the winner of the current generation. It innovated.

Sorry but that's just absolute nonsense. The PS2 came along on the back of the PS1. The PS1 sold over 100 million units vs 30 million for the N64 and about 10 million for the Saturn. For you to claim that the PS2 was only a success because it was a DVD player is just bollocks. Sony were already the market leader by a huge margin over Sega and Nintendo before the PS2 was even conceived. 

EDIT: Not a Sony fanboy by the way. My console history is Atari 2600, Commodore 64, Commodore Amiga, SNES, Atari Jaguar, N64, XBox, Gamecube, Dreamcast, PS2, XBox360, PS3, Wii, XBox One, Switch, GTX 1080. My favourite probably being my Amiga, SNES or the original XBox. Spent so mch time playing co-op on the original Halo. Did anybody else play Rocky on XBox by the way? Such a great game.

Edited February 18, 2018 by Dazey

[Iron MikeyJ]

I agree that because of the PS1, Sony had developed a positive reputation. But the PS2 IS the most successful Sony system, with sales numbers around 150 million. In order for a system to have such massive numbers it has to cross over from "gamers" to casual audience (non gamers). The PS1 didn't crossover to non gamers, only a few systems pulled that feat off (NES, PS2, and the Wii). All three of those had a reason that appealed to people in a unique way. The NES was new and different, it had this guy names Mario. The world had never seen such a thing at that time, bit to mention the light gun and duck hunt also appealed to casual. The Wii appealed to casuals because of Wii Sports frankly. Everybody wanted to play Wii bowling. Finally the PS2 did reach the casual audience because it was the CHEAPEAST DVD player on the market at the time. SO many non gamers bought one because of that feature only. Sure plenty of PS1 gamers graduated to the PS2 also, but not the casuals. To try and ignore that the DVD player helped drive sales of the PS2, is NOT factually accurate. 

[bucketfoot]

37 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

It's the most overrated system in the history of gaming

No it isn't for fucks sake, try to take an unbiased look at the library of games, it's mind blowing. You'd be hard pushed to find anything comparable on any other console. Sony captured a whole generation of gamers with the PS1, they made gaming cool by targeting twenty somethings with stylish ad campaigns etc. They tapped into youth/young adult culture by having Playstations everywhere, they were rigged up in nightclubs for instance, they made gaming a more mature pastime than it had previously been seen as. As I said, they knocked it out of the park from the get-go and left Nintendo and especially Sega, floundering. The dvd aspect of the PS2 was just a very smart, forward thinking move which made it an even more must have item just as dvd's were really taking off, another example of Sony being ahead of the game. Nintendo have managed to recover well and did a similar kind of thing with the Wii and now the Switch through their innovation. RIP Sega.

51 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

So you Sony fanboys

I'm not a fanboy in the slightest, I own and enjoy multiple systems by different companies. Fanboys tend to be complete fucking arseholes.

[bucketfoot]

Anyway, the Dreamcast lives on. Long live the Dreamcast! Hurrah!

[Iron MikeyJ]

@bucketfoot,

While what you said in regards to the games was true for its time, those "classic" games have aged poorly and are no longer playable or desired. In 20 years people will no longer care about ANY game from either the PS1 or PS2, yet Nintendo AND Sega have proved their games DO stand the test of time. So how impressive IS those library's really???

As for the DVD function, you might view as innovative, but I see it as a gimmick. Different opinions I suppose.

[Dazey]

24 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

I agree that because of the PS1, Sony had developed a positive reputation. But the PS2 IS the most successful Sony system, with sales numbers around 150 million. In order for a system to have such massive numbers it has to cross over from "gamers" to casual audience (non gamers). The PS1 didn't crossover to non gamers, only a few systems pulled that feat off (NES, PS2, and the Wii). All three of those had a reason that appealed to people in a unique way. The NES was new and different, it had this guy names Mario. The world had never seen such a thing at that time, bit to mention the light gun and duck hunt also appealed to casual. The Wii appealed to casuals because of Wii Sports frankly. Everybody wanted to play Wii bowling. Finally the PS2 did reach the casual audience because it was the CHEAPEAST DVD player on the market at the time. SO many non gamers bought one because of that feature only. Sure plenty of PS1 gamers graduated to the PS2 also, but not the casuals. To try and ignore that the DVD player helped drive sales of the PS2, is NOT factually accurate. 

Well let’s assume for a moment that we take away the DVD player (which I agree did drive sales to an extent) and just say that people only bought a PS2 through brand loyalty. That’s 100 million vs 150 million. That’s still 10 times the sales of the Dreamcast. Even if we say 50% of PS2 owners bought it for no other reason than the DVD player it’s still 75 million and not even close. 

Edit: Dreamcast was also out two years before the PS2 so I’m not sure how you can blame its failure on a console that wasn’t even around at the time. 

Edited February 18, 2018 by Dazey

[DieselDaisy]

I gave up gaming after the Playstation 2. The games didn't seem as interesting after that and the online thing never interested me.

Bloody expensive hobby, isn't it? Out of all my childhood hobbies, most of which are basically the same ones today, e.g., music/guitars, films, etc., this used to be the one that cleaned me out. 

[Iron MikeyJ]

@bucketfoot,

Let me also add that I would argue Sega was THE most innovative. So much that they were TOO far a head of their time. The Saturn had internet capabilities in 1995. Heck even the Genesis/Mega Drive had the Sega channel, which one could argue REALLY gave birth to "online" gaming. Sega correctly predicted the future of gaming, they just did it before the public was ready for it. I also believe that the Dreamcast or even the Saturn (can't remember which) had the first truly wireless controller, even before the Nintendo Wavebird. Their are also other examples of Sega being SUPER advanced, I just can't recall them off of the too of my head.

@Dazey,

Yes you are correct that the Dreamcast was THE king of gaming for 2 years before the PS2. But it was the PS2 that caused it's demise. As I said earlier, the Dreamcast got discontinued BEFORE the Xbox and GameCube even got released. It's when the Dreamcast went head to head with the PS2 and it's DVD player that caused it's death. 

[Iron MikeyJ]

13 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

I gave up gaming after the Playstation 2. The games didn't seem as interesting after that and the online thing never interested me.

Bloody expensive hobby, isn't it? Out of all my childhood hobbies, most of which are basically the same ones today, e.g., music/guitars, films, etc., this used to be the one that cleaned me out. 

IDK man, I've spent MORE money on guitars, amps, recording devices, strings, straps, guitar tab books, etc than I have on gaming I bet.

[bucketfoot]

17 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

I think Sega gave up too quickly.

Sega killed the Dreamcast off far too early imo, well tried to, that little sucker refuses to die, it's unkillable. It lives! It's aliiiiive!!!

20 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

Do you think it will ever be possible for them to re-enter the hardware market? I can't believe Atari is making a new console lol

Probably not, unfortunately, too much time has passed and there's just too much competition now. It'd be hard to gain a foothold against Sony and Microsoft's financial clout. Hats off to Nintendo for holding their own. Dunno what Atari are thinking tbh.

[DieselDaisy]

2 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

IDK man, I've spent MORE money on guitars, amps, recording devices, strings, straps, guitar tab books, etc than I have on gaming I bet.

Once I had a decent set-up, that was generally it for me - and I do have a handful of guitars. With these games it was basically the best part of fifty quid per (new) game! And then when the new consoles arrives, your old one becomes swiftly obsolete (if anything, it is the reverse with guitars: the older the better). It was like having a drug addiction! The sensible people waited about a year and picked the games up second hand for around a tenner. Luckily I lost interest in gaming after the Playstation 2 (San Andreas was my ''Indian Summer''). The games just do not seem as good now as those I enjoyed in the past like Final Fantasy 7 and Tekken 2.

I still arse about on some incredibly old military strategy games on this here PC though. 

[Dazey]

I have a special edition cherry sunburst Telecaster. Can’t play it but it set me back a good grand and a half. 

[bucketfoot]

27 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

I gave up gaming after the Playstation 2. The games didn't seem as interesting after that and the online thing never interested me.

Bloody expensive hobby, isn't it? Out of all my childhood hobbies, most of which are basically the same ones today, e.g., music/guitars, films, etc., this used to be the one that cleaned me out. 

It's not too bad nowadays to be honest, second hand gaming is the way to go if you're on a tight budget, shops like CEX, you can pick games up for next to nowt.

[DieselDaisy]

I had a Xbox for about one year (I got it bought for me) and I had a Call of Duty game, and the single player campaign lasted five seconds. What a con. Sold the entire thing.

[ZoSoRose]

As a kid I played my friends SNES and PS1. Then, I started with Nintendo with the 64.

Then I got a gamecube and switched to XBox for Halo.

Stuck with Xbox through the Xbone which is very disappointing. Sony has so many great exclusive franchises I want to play. I dont understand what could be wrong with Playstation when they offer so many cool games. My friend gave me a PS3 and my gf and I have been diving into the catalog. So far so bought the Uncharted, God of War, and Last of Us games. I wish I had a PS4 or Switch.

I think picking sides are dumb. A game is a game. Play what you like

[bucketfoot]

34 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

@bucketfoot,

While what you said in regards to the games was true for its time, those "classic" games have aged poorly and are no longer playable or desired. In 20 years people will no longer care about ANY game from either the PS1 or PS2, yet Nintendo AND Sega have proved their games DO stand the test of time. So how impressive IS those library's really???

As for the DVD function, you might view as innovative, but I see it as a gimmick. Different opinions I suppose.

You seem to be a big Nintendo fan, would you class the Wii motion controls as gimmicky? Or innovative? Whatever it was, it worked and then some.

[ZoSoRose]

10 hours ago, Oldest Goat said:

 But now, 343i has run the series into the fucking ground with 4 and 5 as well as how they fucked up the Master Chief Collection. Maybe Halo 6 will redeem them? I think it will have a trailer at e3 tbh

I loved Halo 4. Still do, I know I'm weird. Hated 5

10 hours ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

I've seen a lot, enough to know Sony IS the enemy, and it's fanboys are NOT true gamers imo. They are the "Johnny come lately" to the gamer lifestyle. 

Wtf, Mikey lol

[action]

1 hour ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

I agree that because of the PS1, Sony had developed a positive reputation. But the PS2 IS the most successful Sony system, with sales numbers around 150 million. In order for a system to have such massive numbers it has to cross over from "gamers" to casual audience (non gamers). The PS1 didn't crossover to non gamers, only a few systems pulled that feat off (NES, PS2, and the Wii). All three of those had a reason that appealed to people in a unique way. The NES was new and different, it had this guy names Mario. The world had never seen such a thing at that time, bit to mention the light gun and duck hunt also appealed to casual. The Wii appealed to casuals because of Wii Sports frankly. Everybody wanted to play Wii bowling. Finally the PS2 did reach the casual audience because it was the CHEAPEAST DVD player on the market at the time. SO many non gamers bought one because of that feature only. Sure plenty of PS1 gamers graduated to the PS2 also, but not the casuals. To try and ignore that the DVD player helped drive sales of the PS2, is NOT factually accurate. 

i hate the Wii with a passion and would burn the thing.... but wii bowling is the only videogame, ever that i got my wife to play. my wife wouldnt touch video games with a ten feel stick, but wii bowling, man.... it sparked something in her. she has never played a video game ever since, but for as short as her experience with it was, somehow she "got" why i like video games so much, and she tolerated my hobby because of it.

and so, i keep my Wii and the stupid Wii sports. it saved my gaming ass and it paved the way for the switch in our living room. little things like that get me a bit emotional.

Edited February 18, 2018 by action

[-W.A.R-]

The PS2 may be the GOAT console.

Thats pretty good for a glorified DVD player