OT: As a PS3 Fanboy im admitting defeat.. Sony is washed up.. (MY RANT)

From your second link:

Riiiiight.

 

Funnily enough, we get a bit more Skyrim-PS3 news today, regarding Dawnguard:
http://www.bethblog.com/2012/08/02/dawnguard-ps3-update/

Bethesda is actually holding it back since they're not happy with its performance. They either learned their lesson with the release of the core game...or wow, Dawnguard must be REALLY bad on PS3 right now.

(Since the OP does have Skyrim in his name, maybe this isn't too far off-topic)

 

Okay, so the initial post basically:
1. rants about how the Vita sucks,
2. complains about how a lot of franchises that were previously exclusive now aren't.

And the conclusion you draw from this is "Sony and PS3 have fallen off?"

Those two things have very little to do with PS3's quality as a console. I have no idea why "losing exclusives" bothers you. Heck, I'd be more than okay with it if there were no exclusives. How is it hurting you that a title isn't exclusive? I can see the argument if you're a PC gamer and you're mad Crysis 2 got "consolized," but come on! The 360 and PS3's capabilities are close enough to being the same as makes no difference.

+1

I can't *fathom* why people like the new layout of the 360's menu over the original blades. The blades were straightforward and functional. The new format has introduced two things that are big issues for me:
1. Menus are more convoluted. Example: a standard DVD means you have to go to the "play disc" section, whereas if you want to watch something off a server or off a data dvd, you have to go over to the "video player" app, which is several sections over and then buried several clicks down. We can't have one place to play video? Really?
2. SO MANY ADS. Your average tab in the 360 has one large window and four smaller windows. In most tabs, THREE OF THESE FIVE WINDOWS ARE ADS. I mean... seriously? It's very unpleasant to be bombarded by advertising every time I turn the thing on. And as RC says, this is the service you're required to pay for! How does that make sense? Paid subscription = more ads? What!?

I've never once had it sufficiently explained to me what makes Xbox Live so much "better" than PSN. Cross-game chat seems like the only difference to me, having played on both networks. And seeing as I don't care about that feature, I'll take the service that's free that does the exact same thing. Bonus points to PSN also for having less foul-mouthed 12-year-olds on their network as well.

I really think you're overstating the whole "non-exclusives run better on 360 thing." I definitely grant that that effect existed in the first couple years, and the graphics comparisons that were all the rage at the time clearly showed that 360 won out most of the time. But, two points: first, even back then, unless you did actually do side-by-side comparisons, most people were hard-pressed to tell the difference (myself included). There are the occasional awful ports (*cough* Bayonetta, *cough*), but those are/were rare. Secondly: these days, the differences are miniscule. And sometimes it even goes the other way for non-exclusives (DA: Origins, Dragon's Dogma).

 

A lot of ranting in the OP that I don't agree with. I don't like calling myself a Sony Fanboy. I'm more anti-Microsoft since they ****ed with Java and were asshats in the early 90's to a lot of tech companies. I've had every available Nintendo and a Sony every generation going back to the original Nintendo.

I don't think Sony is washed up, but I don't think there's any doubt that they've lost the most this generation. They went from flying high with the PS2 to last place with this generation regardless of your feelings on the quality of the PS3 and its games. I personally love their first party games. 360 skews towards too many shooters for my tastes. I mostly play those third party games, and I've been content with what they've served up for the PS3. They've lost out on a few PSN titles (Super Meatboy never, Braid and Limbo delayed), but they've also had their own exclusives.

I don't play a lot online, so the XBox Live vs. PSN doesn't really factor into it for me. They screwed up royally with the whole outage last year and how they handled it. I think that's what has hurt them most this generation. Hubris is not attractive, and people love watching arrogant egomaniacs knocked off their perch. Sony has seemed so tone deaf since the PS3 launched. First was the high price tag, developers getting pissed at working with them, getting rid of BC, Unix, the network outage, and their condescension as they were getting outsold by first the Wii and then the 360. I feel they have consistently put out great games, but it's been overshadowed by their awkward messaging. I personally hate Kevin Butler. They've toned down the arrogance now that they've cemented third place this console cycle, but they are still spending too much time messaging peripherals instead of focusing on first party exclusives.

I don't follow handhelds that closely, but it seems like they did learn their lesson with the Vita by releasing a lot more software for it, which is where the 3DS seems to have failed. Maybe it was priced too high, but I think Sony and Nintendo are only now realizing how much smart phones and tablets have cut into their consumer base. I think Sony will continue to throw first party support at the Vita, encourage third party developers to port games or create exclusive chapters of popular titles (Assassin's Creed, etc.), and innovate interplay between the PS3 and eventually the PS4. It won't sell as well as they were probably hoping for, but I think they've made a much better effort to have it succeed than they did with PSP.

I think Sony is in a good spot heading into the next generation. The odd man out for the next console cycle is Nintendo. Their lack of third party support is going to kill them, and the paltry specs on the Wii U does not bode well for them in a year when Sony and Microsoft hit the market with shiny new workhorses. Nintendo fan boys will be Nintendo fan boys, but that casual market is going to dry up. My in-laws won't be buying a Wii U to replace the Wii that they played for 3 months when it was hot.

PS4 vs Xbox Next is going to be an interesting race to watch. Both will have roughly the same graphics IMO. Microsoft has the more popular online service, although you do have to pay for it. Microsoft has the Kinect, and Sony has the Move. I don't think Sony will ever get the Move to catch on as much as they'd like, but maybe they'll actually do some more interesting things the next generation. Hard core gamers don't really care about either anyways.

I do think Sony will have the best first party games again on the new generation. It sucks that they lost Insomniac, but they haven't been hitting on all cylinders this generation sadly. Still they have a strong stable of developers that will iterate popular IPs and create new standards. I have more faith in their games than in Microsoft's first party efforts.

I think third party development will be a wash. Dumping the Cell should simplify developing for the PS4 (I've read multiple times that they are stressing ease of development), which will cut down on the initial graphic discrepancies. Some franchises will get first crack at DLC on one console, but others will go to the competition.

One area that could be the tipping point for the casual gamers and is huge for me is the functionality of the box for multimedia. More and more people are cutting the cord and trying to find a solution to watch their entertainment through online streaming. It's a hodgepodge right now. I've tried Roku to connect to Netflix, Amazon Prime, and NBA League Pass, but I didn't like the interface or the performance. Both Microsoft and Sony have made moves to simplifying this process, and I'm expecting both to come out guns blazing with their new console. If I could buy one machine and have it be a hoss entertainment console that enables me to easily watch shows, movies, and sports from a variety of sources, that would be a mighty strong selling point. I might even use it to play some awesome games from time to time.

 

You must be so cool. I mean what kind of loser would play video games in their 20s, besides almost every NFL, NBA, MLB player in the league. Hell I'm 24 and I still play them.

You must be too cool to kill virtual terrorists.

 

Umm... I believe he was saying that he doesn't particularly care about one system over another, not that he doesn't play games.

Your taunt could use work, anyway. Kinda bland.

 

I don't have much time to play ****load of games that I want anymore, but I figure I wouldn't be a fanboy if only because I can own all three systems without saving up my allowance and soda can recycle money...

Having said that, it takes an unusual breed of gamer to play only Nintendo consoles. I've been through it and living in the reality bubble is pretty painful.... like gaming on a mac but a little better.

 

Don't think he was talking about it being underpowered compared to current-gen systems (released 6-7 years ago), but compared to consoles released by MS/Sony in the next year or two (or...three). PS4/720 vs Wii-U, not PS3/360 vs Wii-U.

His basic point is fine (technically, there's no way Wii-U games shouldn't look better), but wow, so many inaccuracies/problems with his reasoning.

Again, pretty sure he was guessing on support for the Wii-U once the PS4/720 come out. Due to the tech specs (well...and due to other issues, including this being Nintendo), there might be a big difference in 3rd party support. As it it, don't think Epic will officially support the Wii-U with UE4. That's a pretty big deal (although I'm guessing someone can get it running, just very scaled back).

Basically thinking what happened with the Wii, but all over again. Guess the Wii-U might get some better attention early on, but ports from 360/PS3 releases probably won't be something to really like.

Of course, if Wii-U sells 90M+ units or whatever, guessing they'll have to have some support.

I know you just picked an arbitrary number, but I'm not even sure the PS4/720 will be 5x better than PS3/360. I'd scale back expectations. Personally, I'm expecting Wii-U games to have slightly better graphics than current-gen games (and so far, that seems about right). Maybe enough horsepower to run some sub-HD games in 720p at a consistent 60 FPS. Can also take that power and improve lighting, etc., too I guess (although I'm sick of sub-HD and 20FPS games personally). I'd rather take a cheap PS3/360 if all I was interested in playing was current-gen games (of course, you'd get a Wii-U to play tons of their 1st party games, but if you were ignoring them for some reason...).


Skyrim video:
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/gYY1GHzauCo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

You've made a mistake.

 

Right...that's why I was saying it isn't all that great if the Wii-U is just more powerful than them. It better be. The issue is how it compares to PS4/720.

Not sure if it is most, but a lot of games render at something more like 500p-600p (GTA, CoD, Halo 3, FFXIII, and a few others come to mind). Mostly multi-platform games.

I doubt it. It will support 1080p, but I doubt all developers will render at 1080p (unless I missed a Nintendo mandate, although it would be silly for them to do that). Like I said, we'd be lucky if they targeted 720p and up, especially since that would better allow for 60 FPS (or at least a solid 30 FPS).

Actually just did some searching, and there are reports that launch titles will be 720p only (or something along those lines, didn't really care to read much). So...yeah.

Again, I hope it has more power than systems released in 2005-2006.

Like I said, his main point was fine, but his little facts and reasons were inaccurate at times (e.g., eDRAM was not the reason why 360 games looked better).

 

What will be the power/heat standard for the new gen systems?



Will they be beasts again to be slimmed down later, or compromised performance from the beginning?

 

I thought the OP was another RC Cola account!

Sony, in general, has dropped the ball. They had the best TVs, the top game system, and the top portable music player at one point in their history. They need to reinvent themselves and improve their image as a top consumer products company.

 

Forgot about the Walkman, wow.

They are making the best camera image sensors though. The Nikon D800 sensor is awesome.

 

The PS3 has Demon's Souls. Therefore that console is OK in my book. The Uncharted series ain't bad, too. Likewise with Valkyria Chronicles and Heavy Rain.

(I like Dark Souls even more, but it's both PS3/360, and the PC version is coming out in a few weeks.)

 

The microsoft fud campaign against sony is starting early.

Funny how someone new comes here, makes a bunch of false statements and tells everyone he's getting a nextbox for sure when he knows nothing about the specs on the next gen systems. Hey skyrimownsall, how can I get in on this and how much do they pay?

 

Did you really just intend to say that Microsoft is paying someone to play missionary for their next console...and they pay him to do it on clutchfans.net, a small Rockets forum....what....?

 

Sorry, forgot to check this thread over the weekend...

Not my area of expertise, but think it might get a bit higher with the new systems, but not much more (early 360s/PS3s were already producing a lot of heat and requiring a lot of power). Definitely going to have problems fitting some of the latest and greatest tech into a console. For example, even ignoring the costs in producing such a chip, I doubt they'd be able to get the latest, high-end GPUs from AMD/Nvidia simply due to how much power they need and how much heat they put out. Don't want a console that sounds like a leaf-blower either. PC parts have gotten pretty ridiculous with heat/power, but that is acceptable in that market. Not so with consoles.

They'll still be pretty good beasts IMO, but definitely some compromises I think. Still enough power that they'll be slimmed down over time, as manufacturing improves (and whenever Sony decides to make their system look worse).

 

The video review below notes that PSN network performance is far superior to XBOX Live on this game, to the point where the 360 version was actually rated lower. Made me think of this thread. I'm now struggling even more to understand to why everyone keeps claiming Live is so far superior, as if it were self-evident.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/GZE97ODni6s#t=5m39s" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>