I'm boycotting Sony, who's with me?

[xxxeagle]

Thats not true they don't lose money on the ps2 I doubt they lose money on the psp (they did on me I have brought mine back 2 times) boycotting sony ps2 and psp will not help sony because the less people with the systems the less games they sell therefore they lose money.

[XPCportables]

Exactly

[Conn]

Because Sony specializes in things like camcorders, tvs, and stereos. Microsoft has actually made games before the xbox came out. Granted, it was never their main focus, but they have focused on it moreso than sony has.

Sony made some sports games on the Super Nintendo, and quite a few game for the PS and PS2.

[SpongeBuell]

If they do in fact lose money on each PS2 (which wouldn't surprise me) they make their money in games. Kind of like McDonalds, they don't make much (if any) money on sandwiches, but they make up for it with pop and french fries. A large pop costs them about $.25. Also, printers are pretty cheap, but the companies make up for it by selling $50 ink cartridges.

[Lucretius]

Man you guys make disscussions dumb down. Let's start talkin' sense:

1. Sony produces SOME video game stuff. But they most certainly do not only do that and I wouldn't be willing to say it accounts for even half of their earnings. They are a MEDIA company. They specialize in entertainment media. Nothing specific other than electronics. Period.

2. As of 2004's forth quarter, they have not made sufficiant profit per console.
Tell's all.
What happened was that Nintendo could make their console for less. They could sell their's for cheaper. Sony and MS didn't like that. So they began lowering their price for selling WITHOUT lowering the price for making their consoles. Sony didn't do that great and MS actually lost money.

Now, let's start backing claims with fact. Ok?

[Skyone]

HAHA! Wow that's funny Luc. Where the hell did you find that?

[marshallh]

Thats not true they don't lose money on the ps2.

From nintendoinsider.com

"Sony is facing a similar situation with PlayStation Portable (and the PS2 before that). A recent Bloomberg report says it costs 30,000 yen to make a PSP, or roughly $275. Sony is selling the PSP for $250 in America, so a $25 loss is not bad at all. But the system goes for a low 19,800 yen, or roughly $185, in Japan, meaning a $90 loss per system."

[electromaster64]

This is old news I boycotted Sony when the Playstation was released So when did they start doing the EULA thing on CDs because I put all of my CDs on my computer and travel abroad all the time? How do I know if they put junk on my PC that is updating itself. This is absurd.

[xriverfalconx]

First, in the whole thing with dreamcast having better graphics then psx, well, i'm sorry, but Castlevania:Symphony of the Night, which was 2d, had better graphics than ANY dreamcast game. No dreamcast came can top that Castlevania title ever when it comes to GAMEPLAY, GRAPHICS, FUNFACTOR, especially, REPLAY VALUE and CONTROLS!!!

Next:
Too many fanboys going at it at once!!! Here is my breakdown on the whole "console wars" issue.

First, personally, I will admit that i prefer Nintendo and Sony over Microsoft. And as you read this, you'll come to see why, and hopefully, have a better look when going with ANY system where its from Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo.

For these new systems I like to be fair with all of them in any way possible. First area, which shouldn't be a factor when playing a game, is GRAPHICS. I'll admit in a heartbeat that Microsoft takes the cake when it comes to the graphic department because they have more experience with it. Nintendo and Sony follow together in this field.

Gameplay/Control(ers)- Gamecube Controller, I'm not sure what they see in making analogs everywhere...sure, it helps for SOME games, but in the end, you need the d-pad for others or else you are going to have a hard time trying to play the game at an enjoyable rate. Microsoft controller, I think its great because of the size and I have big hands too, but overall, I am not comfortable with how the analog stick moves when playing a game. I've tried many controllers, but most of them to me are pretty rough and it takes away the fun when playing a game as well. Sony controller, a nice controller but sometimes, the buttons can be a bit too close especially when playing fighter games. However, I do enjoy this because the gaming companies allow the use of the d-pad for a lot of games with really help over the analog. Only thing I don't like with any of these 3 different controllers, is the rumble pack. I wanna play the game and not have the rumble going off...yeah, i can turn it off...it's just a peeve.

Funfactor/Replay Value: Nintendo, mainly targets the youth and families with there console and I think its great. I can sit with my younger brother and play mario party, mario kart, mario tennis, mario golf....too many mario games, however, we can sit together and play with me not worrying about the language being thrown out. Many of the games Nintendo and it's third party companies create are multiplayer which offers a great replay value, imo, and they have a lot of fun games too. Also, when it comes to single player areas, they do have a high funfactor but the only downfall i feel is in the replay value of these single player games.
Microsoft...think about this first. When you ask xbox fans why they like xbox, what's the first thing you hear? Why, if you said Halo...you are correct. But, for some strange reason...why don't you hear any other game? I don't want a system that only offers halo as it's main support and backbone. Sure, I'll glady admit that Halo in multiplayer is outstanding, however, single player mode is terrible. I like multiplayer games, but i enjoy single player games too. Secondly, XBox360, already, all I hear is that Halo 3 will be great.......what about the other games? You want to buy the 360 just for halo3? That's pretty silly don't you think? Why not try another game? Maybe Project Gothem 3? The new Ninja Gaiden? Get away from Halo for ONE second and play something else... Anywho, I have played a few titles on the xbox and I wasn't too thrilled with there titles. Project Gothem was one highly pumped game when released, I tried it...it was too slow for me, however the graphics department was out of this world. Oddworld was fantastic, no complaints there, Ninja Gaiden was simply sweet...but, as for the rest, I simply didn't like them at all. The only good thing about XBox when it comes to gameplay the wins is the Sports games....that's about it though.
Sony, I'll definitely admit that some companies PUSH out a game just to get it out there...and the game simply sucks. However, PS2 does have many great games that are successful mainly titles from Square, Capcom, and even Sony Enterprise themselves. These games (which have been named already in previous posts) offer a great gameplay challenge and what's even better that takes the cake over the other two, is the replay value. I can buy a game and know that I'll have a good chance of replaying this game over when I finish it. Sure, the graphics may not be out of this world, but who cares? I want a game thats going to be FUN for me and yes, the PS2 offers more games with a great replay value.

This is where I go when I make my decisions when purchasing games and systems. I don't go with the bandwagon of groupies screaming "we are better then them". I have my own wagon that I am comfortable with and I have a system that I feel you all should at least think about trying. A year from now, I'll play the xbox 360 and see how it is, but if it's still just a graphics system, I won't waste my money on it either. Same with ps2 and the revolution. they need to prove that they are worth my every dollar! Thanks for reading my story!!!

[Reaperman@home]

First, in the whole thing with dreamcast having better graphics then psx, well, i'm sorry, but Castlevania:Symphony of the Night, which was 2d, had better graphics than ANY dreamcast game.

you could argue that the sega saturn version of symphony of the night (called Dracula X (jp)) was superior to the psx version in pretty much every way--I guess that means that Saturns are more powerful than dreamcasts...

Castlevania symphony of the night is simply what we call "a good game." I'm sorry if you haven't seen any pretty graphics on DC, but they are there. Though saturn's 2d abilities were quite high. It's actually hard to think of a game on DC that wasn't vastly superior to the PSX, which tended to choke on the majority of visual effects. Try and find a 3d transparency, for example. They are very rare.

[Conn]

First, in the whole thing with dreamcast having better graphics then psx, well, i'm sorry, but Castlevania:Symphony of the Night, which was 2d, had better graphics than ANY dreamcast game.

..I'm finding a hard time trying to make sense out of this post.

[Sparkfist]

@xriverfalconx, a 2D game on a 3D gaming machine is easy. If your going to compare quality of game graphics look for the games that were on both consoles. I know there werent many but there are some fighting games to look at.

@electromaster64, I would like you to read thorugh this, this, and this.

[XPCportables]

xriverfalconx nice artical, I agree with most of your points, the games are what matters not graphics. I love graphics though, i know that it shouldn't be the focus but its good for a system to have.

[xriverfalconx]

@ Reaperman@home - I know that DC has great graphics, but most of them looked like they used a simple 3rd party graphics program to create these. Remember, that is just my opinion on the graphics part. As for gameplay, DC had many fun games that I could play over and over, no question on that.

@ Conn - I understand what you are saying...take the paperbag off your head first, then read it again

@ Sparkfist - My view on the graphics portion only came after reading the previous posts that had members arguing over graphics. That's why I pointed out a 2d game being better than a 3d one. We all have our own opinions and I take no offense when others give me there views on this topic.

@XPCportables - I enjoy some nice visuals as well, but it's sad when a game is based only on graphics, which if you read all the posts here, you'll see many arguements are based on graphics over gameplay and funfactor. Because of this, a lot of games coming out today are getting weaker and shorter because players argue that a great game MUST have superior graphics over gameplay. Look at Doom3 for example. Wonderful graphics...yet the game wasn't as fun as it was hyped to be. I LOVE FPS games, but I literally forced myself to complete it only because I bought it.

[xxxeagle]

I dont think sony sells the psp or ps2 at a loss becuase they might at first but once they develop a good way to mass produce and perfect there process it costs them a lot less than what they sell it for.