Author Topic: Sony getting hit Hard lately (Read 665714 times)

stevey · « **Reply #1450 on:** February 19, 2007, 08:26:26 AM »

It's official psp is the past....

That got to be bad blow for the psp, wonder when the ps3 will start showing up on flyer for a wii.
link

Kairon · « **Reply #1451 on:** February 19, 2007, 11:11:42 AM »

wow

~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

MaryJane · « **Reply #1452 on:** February 19, 2007, 11:19:14 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
wow

~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

Ditto

WuTangTurtle · « **Reply #1453 on:** February 19, 2007, 02:41:12 PM »

and for a pink DS no less, lol that would be hilarious!

Ceric · « **Reply #1454 on:** February 19, 2007, 02:55:00 PM »

In trade it's not worth as much as a DS Lite...

UncleBob · « **Reply #1455 on:** February 19, 2007, 03:55:13 PM »

Wow... check out some of the comments: http://www.pspfanboy.com/2007/02/19/ds-is-the-future-psp-is-the-past-says-eb/1#comments

Blue Plant · « **Reply #1456 on:** February 19, 2007, 04:27:54 PM »

I feel unclean by those comments! *covers mouth*

Caterkiller · « **Reply #1457 on:** February 19, 2007, 04:34:51 PM »

Wow, I love it! Though the PSP probably should have been up there with the DSL. This will just cement Nintendo's place in the hand held race even better. Those comments are great! There is so much blind fanboyism, but hey we are all gamers, and we all act stupid from time to time. And by we I mean them, and not us.

BranDonk Kong · « **Reply #1458 on:** February 19, 2007, 04:59:47 PM »

It's actually just like the Wii and the PS3, at least when all of these systems launched. PSP was $100 more than DS, didn't seem to focus on gameplay, and came with extra crap that you didn't want or need. PS3 costs $250 or $350 more than the Wii. doesn't seem to focus on gameplay, and includes crap that you don't want or need.

Smash_Brother · « **Reply #1459 on:** February 19, 2007, 05:07:59 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Brandogg
It's actually just like the Wii and the PS3, at least when all of these systems launched. PSP was $100 more than DS, didn't seem to focus on gameplay, and came with extra crap that you didn't want or need. PS3 costs $250 or $350 more than the Wii. doesn't seem to focus on gameplay, and includes crap that you don't want or need.

I keep making that same argument and people try to dismiss it when I do.

Why is that when it's so damn obvious that the PSP and PS3 have nearly all of their failings in common?

Arbok · « **Reply #1460 on:** February 19, 2007, 05:48:46 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Caterkiller
Those comments are great! There is so much blind fanboyism...

Really? I thought the comments were pretty level headed and fair, like these:

Quote
have you ever played a gizmodo or ngage? even those wer ebetter than the ds imo.

Quote
I really dislike EB games, they sold me a used, $150, game-less, memory card-less PSP, tried to tell me that the 32mb card was extra, somehow always manage to hire more women than men, took over gamestop, and constantly bash my favorite system like the above ad...

Adrock · « **Reply #1461 on:** February 19, 2007, 06:13:49 PM »

Quote
Smash_Brother wrote:
I keep making that same argument and people try to dismiss it when I do.

Why is that when it's so damn obvious that the PSP and PS3 have nearly all of their failings in common?

Yeah, but they exist in different markets. That's why I think it's a tough comparison; one that doesn't say that much.

PSP enjoyed some runs of success early, but anyone who understands why and how Sony took the console world by storm should have realized that they couldn't match that success in the handheld market using the same tactics. One of the reasons is that you can't sell a crappier version of Madden to the same people for triple the price and hassle (four PSPs and as many copies of the game). Why the hell would you bother with that? PSP also has ass load times and battery life - 2 major no-no's for portables.

Nintendo, with DS, displayed an immense amount of foresight. They really understood the market and understood more than anyone the need for change. You can't just offer pocket versions of console games. Otherwise, anyone can find a suitable console equivalent. That's really PSP's biggest issue. I think more people would be willing to embrace PSP if it offered something non-PS2. I wouldn't say the focus wasn't on gameplay. Rather, everything PSP could do, big brother PS2 could do better, faster, and prettier.

PSP and PS3 may have some similar negatives, but if they fail, they'll fail for different reasons. I'm not going to start a whole big debate, mostly because I don't care enough. This is just where I stand.

Khushrenada · « **Reply #1462 on:** February 19, 2007, 06:19:04 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Arbok
Quote
Originally posted by: Caterkiller
Those comments are great! There is so much blind fanboyism...

Really? I thought the comments were pretty level headed and fair, like these:

Quote
have you ever played a gizmodo or ngage? even those wer ebetter than the ds imo.

Quote
I really dislike EB games, they sold me a used, $150, game-less, memory card-less PSP, tried to tell me that the 32mb card was extra, somehow always manage to hire more women than men, took over gamestop, and constantly bash my favorite system like the above ad...

You left out the best part of that last quote. After going into his hate of EB, the person then said they wished arson was legal. Ah, yes. If only they would change that silly oversight of the law. Just think how much better the world would be if these people could commit arson and not be charged with a crime.

KDR_11k · « **Reply #1463 on:** February 19, 2007, 06:46:59 PM »

"pre-played systems excluded"? Does that mean you can only trade in a system you haven't used yet?

oohhboy · « **Reply #1464 on:** February 19, 2007, 08:50:59 PM »

I think they are referring to the systems they sell as pre-played. They only want one owner systems, not systems with 2 or more pervious owners.

UncleBob · « **Reply #1465 on:** February 20, 2007, 02:41:02 AM »

I figured they meant that you only get the posted trade in values toward a new DSLite, not a used one...
Anywhoo, the best part about the above-above quiote is the whole "they took over GameStop" crap. GameStop took over EBGames. That's why, when you go into EBGames, you see GameStop branded accessories all over the place.

segagamer12 · « **Reply #1466 on:** February 20, 2007, 05:58:51 AM »

It's not good enough, I want death to Sony *NOW* Whats with all this little victories, I want Wii to *kill* ps3 and, if DS is so strong why hasn't it *killed* psp yet? Did it take this long for GB to kill GG? I know that it lasted for a few years but come on this is crazy. Die already!

couchmonkey · « **Reply #1467 on:** February 20, 2007, 05:59:52 AM »

The whole, "PSP and PS3 are different" markets argument is true, but irrelevant. The fact is, Nintendo is finding ways to sell games to new customers in both the handheld and home markets, and that is what is going to allow Nintendo to win the home market just as it won the DS market. The sheer number of users will force third parties to develop for Wii (it's already starting to happen - see dev kit shortages story on the main page), and gamers will get sucked in their wake, like this guy from the pspfanboy link above:

Quote
Sure DS technically ain't the next generation graphics wise, but you have to say the touchscreen actually freakin works. I bought a Blask DS lite this week, and i have to say with sorrow... the PSP is its case in my drawer for the last 5 days... Sigh never thought this would happen.

...a clever disruption works in ANY market.

Edit - Segagamer: Game Gear was officially supported from 1990-1997, according to Wikipedia. So PSP could easily stay on the market for several more years. Sony is too strong to die off right away, I guess you could take comfort in the fact that PSP is never, ever going to be number 1, and PS3 probably won't either. That said, competition is good. When Nintendo has no competition, prices for us gamers are high.

Smash_Brother · « **Reply #1468 on:** February 20, 2007, 07:32:18 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Adrock
PSP and PS3 may have some similar negatives, but if they fail, they'll fail for different reasons. I'm not going to start a whole big debate, mostly because I don't care enough. This is just where I stand.

It's not just their failings that unite them in commonality but the fact that both are being stomped by foes which share the same differences from their Sony-made counterparts.

The PSP is being beat by a Nintendo made system with inferior graphical capability, games intended to appeal to non-gamers and an innovative method of user input.

The PS3 is ALSO being beat by a Nintendo made system with inferior graphical capability, games intended to appeal to non-gamers and an innovative method of user input.

They're both losing the same battle in the same manner, just on different fronts.

Adrock · « **Reply #1469 on:** February 20, 2007, 08:20:21 AM »

I don't really see it that way. I think PSP and PS3 existing in different markets changes everything.

PSP is failing mostly because no one gives a sh*t about crappier versions of console games. DS didn't pull ahead until they offered an alternative. It has the traditional style games like New Super Mario Bros. and Final Fantasy III, but it also has creative new-styled games like Nintendogs and Phoenix Wright Ace Attorney.

I'm not convinced that PS3 would be getting beaten by Wii (or at least nearly as badly) if it wasn't $600. Take out the Blu-ray drive which cuts the pricetag nearly in half and PS3 would probably be sold out everywhere. The way I see it, all Sony had to do was not release a $600 console and they would've been fine.

With PS3, Sony left the door wide open. With DS, Nintendo didn't really make any huge mistakes. The first year was pretty shakey due to a lack of titles that took advantage of the hardware. Nintendo's big launch game was a slightly enhanced Super Mario 64... except that the original was built around the analog stick which DS unfortunately does not have.

The games on PS3 are coming. Nintendo just has to make sure they have a consistent flow of quality titles in a variety of genres coming to Wii by then.

segagamer12 · « **Reply #1470 on:** February 20, 2007, 08:49:06 AM »

wikipedia is full of errors. Sega produced GGs for that time and continued to allow development, but it was not a major contender for more than its first two years. MK and Sonic kept it afloat for a little while but I know more people who had GB's than GGs, and even I prefered the Nintendo handheld over Segas. Game Gear could also play SMS games so I think that helped in keeping it going, plus Sega continued to support thier hardware even *after* it was putitng them close to backruptcy.

If you look at the releases for the system GG wasn't at all relevent after 94/early 95. Same with Genesis, it lasted LONGER than SNES, by three years I think it was, but the last two years it was like only a hadnful of games and its first two years were all SMS or Arcade ports for the most part. so the point is Sega is better than Sony. Besides either way, Sony is in deeper debt than Sega was at the time and I HATE Sony I LOVE Sega. DIE SONY DIE DIE DIE!!!

Plus Sega split thier own market between Nomad, CDX, and gameGear, so they kinda screwed themselves.

NinGurl69 *huggles · « **Reply #1471 on:** February 20, 2007, 06:00:27 PM »

"The games on PS3 are coming"

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHA

You mean the games that justify the HD era aren't even here yet?

I'D SAY THAT'S QUITE A BIGGER PROBLEM

couchmonkey · « **Reply #1472 on:** February 21, 2007, 03:26:24 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: segagamer12
wikipedia is full of errors. Sega produced GGs for that time and continued to allow development, but it was not a major contender for more than its first two years. MK and Sonic kept it afloat for a little while but I know more people who had GB's than GGs, and even I prefered the Nintendo handheld over Segas. Game Gear could also play SMS games so I think that helped in keeping it going, plus Sega continued to support thier hardware even *after* it was putitng them close to backruptcy.

If you look at the releases for the system GG wasn't at all relevent after 94/early 95. Same with Genesis, it lasted LONGER than SNES, by three years I think it was, but the last two years it was like only a hadnful of games and its first two years were all SMS or Arcade ports for the most part. so the point is Sega is better than Sony. Besides either way, Sony is in deeper debt than Sega was at the time and I HATE Sony I LOVE Sega. DIE SONY DIE DIE DIE!!!

Plus Sega split thier own market between Nomad, CDX, and gameGear, so they kinda screwed themselves.

Wikipedia never said it was 8 "good" years, just 8 years. Obviously the last few years for Game Gear don't count for much, but the point is it still had a few good years - even by your guess, it had about 4 years. PSP has only had 2, and it's already clearly losing to DS. My guess is that by this time next year, PSP will be looking pretty sad, unless Sony makes some radical changes.

As for Sony being deeper in debt than Sega, Sony is bigger than Sega was. If my family restaurant is $4 million in debt, that's a lot more serious than McDonald's being $30 million in debt.

Edit: But I'm getting all businessy here. I'll agree with you on this: DIE SONY DIE DIE DIE!!!

Ceric · « **Reply #1473 on:** February 21, 2007, 05:18:12 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: couchmonkey
Quote
Originally posted by: segagamer12
wikipedia is full of errors. Sega produced GGs for that time and continued to allow development, but it was not a major contender for more than its first two years. MK and Sonic kept it afloat for a little while but I know more people who had GB's than GGs, and even I prefered the Nintendo handheld over Segas. Game Gear could also play SMS games so I think that helped in keeping it going, plus Sega continued to support thier hardware even *after* it was putitng them close to backruptcy.

If you look at the releases for the system GG wasn't at all relevent after 94/early 95. Same with Genesis, it lasted LONGER than SNES, by three years I think it was, but the last two years it was like only a hadnful of games and its first two years were all SMS or Arcade ports for the most part. so the point is Sega is better than Sony. Besides either way, Sony is in deeper debt than Sega was at the time and I HATE Sony I LOVE Sega. DIE SONY DIE DIE DIE!!!

Plus Sega split thier own market between Nomad, CDX, and gameGear, so they kinda screwed themselves.

Wikipedia never said it was 8 "good" years, just 8 years. Obviously the last few years for Game Gear don't count for much, but the point is it still had a few good years - even by your guess, it had about 4 years. PSP has only had 2, and it's already clearly losing to DS. My guess is that by this time next year, PSP will be looking pretty sad, unless Sony makes some radical changes.

As for Sony being deeper in debt than Sega, Sony is bigger than Sega was. If my family restaurant is $4 million in debt, that's a lot more serious than McDonald's being $30 million in debt.

Edit: But I'm getting all businessy here. I'll agree with you on this: DIE SONY DIE DIE DIE!!!

lol. I think that McDonalds could lose a dollar on ever burger they sold and still not go in debt for a few years.

UltimatePartyBear · « **Reply #1474 on:** February 21, 2007, 06:39:38 AM »

They tried that not too long ago, didn't they? It didn't last.

News:

Author Topic: Sony getting hit Hard lately (Read 665714 times)