Sony hate thread

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Bog-standard Poster said:
All I'm saying is, if Starfield and flight sim can run on a Switch 2, then theoretically GTA6 can - not that I believe Nintendo would allow that on their system, and if those games can, then what the hell does Sony have to stop people from buying the brand new shiny-shiny that is the Switch 2?
Click to expand...
Why wouldn’t Nintendo allow it? And please don’t try to say something like “Nintendo only allows family-friendly games on their Bayonetta/Binding of Isaac/Leisure Suit Larry/Yakuza machine”.

Even though it would sell gangbusters, Rockstar won’t put GTA6 on Switch 2 because they’re either retarded or being bribed by have a strong business partnership with Sony.
 
Markorian said:
"Profit" was also revenue minus development costs, not only did it not include marketing, it didn't include disney's SIZEABLE cut of said revenue. I'm pretty sure the leak also came before they even had numbers and was insomniac's EXPECTED profit, but I'm less sure on that one.
Click to expand...
We're talking SM1, right? It had complete financial data for it.
 
Two Dollars said:
Why wouldn’t Nintendo allow it? And please don’t try to say something like “Nintendo only allows family-friendly games on their Bayonetta/Binding of Isaac/Leisure Suit Larry/Yakuza machine”.
Click to expand...
I was going to say something to that effect because I thought Nintendo was shy when it came to OTT violence like GTA, COD, etc. I know they allow fighting and violent games but don't they have a weird moral code when it comes to gaming? They did hire a literal prostitute as their community manager.

Two Dollars said:
Even though it would sell gangbusters, Rockstar won’t put GTA6 on Switch 2 because they’re either retarded or being bribed by have a strong business partnership with Sony.
Click to expand...
Strauss Zelnick is a whore and would port every game he could to Switch/Switch 2 if given the chance. I suspect that Sony have a deal in place and/or Nintendo are just not that arsed about the game.
 
Bog-standard Poster said:
The problem is they did adjust their strategy and are paying for it. They abandoned the old idea that new hardware = new exclusive software. It worked well for 30 years and both MS AND Sony decided to ignore what worked.

If the PS5 had 15 exclusives, it would be selling better. If the Xbox wasn't on two sets of hardware; S and X and had exclusives to just ONE console, they would be selling gangbusters. Gamepass is a great idea to flog old slop and indie games, as it's a digital bargain-bin, but it's absolutely retarded to launch AAA day one games on there.

Both Sony and MS could be brought back to their glory years in six months, if they really wanted to, but they don't. The reason they don't is because Sony is arrogant and retarded and MS hate gamers.
Click to expand...
I mean that they relied upon the "Let the 3rd parties market the console" aspect that carried them until now. The PS1 was the only generation in which they were relying upon their own games about as much as they were on the 3rd parties. They should have adjusted to the right thing is what I am saying. Things such as higher dev time and costs. They should have taken that into account and either made it so that all the studios were making a game or they made games with lesser graphics.

Two Dollars said:
Why wouldn’t Nintendo allow it? And please don’t try to say something like “Nintendo only allows family-friendly games on their Bayonetta/Binding of Isaac/Leisure Suit Larry/Yakuza machine”.

Even though it would sell gangbusters, Rockstar won’t put GTA6 on Switch 2 because they’re either retarded or being bribed by have a strong business partnership with Sony.
Click to expand...
I do not understand why Rockstar does not put its games in the Switch. They are willing to put them on the XBox and that is considered "proper competition".
 
Incecticyder said:
I mean that they relied upon the "Let the 3rd parties market the console" aspect that carried them until now. The PS1 was the only generation in which they were relying upon their own games about as much as they were on the 3rd parties. They should have adjusted to the right thing is what I am saying. Things such as higher dev time and costs. They should have taken that into account and either made it so that all the studios were making a game or they made games with lesser graphics.
Click to expand...
I understand you now. Apologies for the misunderstanding and you are 100% correct. They have 27 (iirc) studios and only insomniac is (was) churning out games. What the fuck have ND's THREE teams being doing?

I agree whole heartedly about the graphics. They need to reign that shit in immediately and only have the biggest flagship titles push the graphics envelope - and then keep it exclusive!, instead of whatever the fuck they're thinking.

That said, I hope the retardation continues. Sony was never the best of the console manufacturers, Sega and Microsoft were.
 
eDove said:
I figured it mostly was a hardware limitation issue. They probably couldn't be assed to optimize and downgrade it so much that it can passably run on the Switch.
Click to expand...
Well, again, GTA 5 was on PS3. Not to mention that the Switch can handle Hogwarts Legacy, the Xenoblade games and Saints' Row 3/4. We can pretend they could not put GTA 5 in there but we would be lying.

Bog-standard Poster said:
I understand you now. Apologies for the misunderstanding and you are 100% correct. They have 27 (iirc) studios and only insomniac is (was) churning out games. What the fuck have ND's THREE teams being doing?
Click to expand...
No worries, it was a logical conclusion to make considering how I wrote it plus you were not wrong with your points either. I think that having a lack of indepence is hurting game development. If one company is having control of all those studios, then output goes down since the same brains have to check and fund everything. Each of those studios have to ask for "More, please" and the company has only so much "more" to give. Sony went on to buy many studios and now those studios either make costly and time consuming games or they assist other studios (but dev time is always increasing). Same problem MS has right now. When they were independent, at least they could make the games they wanted and they had their destiny at their own hands. Now, "Oh no, Concord failed! They will fire from every studio to cover up for their ineptitude!" is the state at play.

Bog-standard Poster said:
I agree whole heartedly about the graphics. They need to reign that shit in immediately and only have the biggest flagship titles push the graphics envelope - and then keep it exclusive!, instead of whatever the fuck they're thinking.
Click to expand...
There is no point if they do not keep things exclusive. A PC is a better investment now than it was in the past. Nintendo found its niche and great success alongside it. PS5PRO graphics did not impress anyone. Marketing consoles on graphics alone has been a wall that was going to close in.

Bog-standard Poster said:
That said, I hope the retardation continues. Sony was never the best of the console manufacturers, Sega and Microsoft were.
Click to expand...
Hard disagree. While Sega and MS had some great machines at the start, they fumbled things hard later. It takes more than a good console to make you into a good manufacturer. Sega Japan screwed up with their decisions on the Saturn and the Dreamcast was forced to deal with the aftermath. And I have no idea what MS was smoking after the original XBox. They made a console that dies all the time (the only thing that saved them was the fact that they had even more money than they could spent) and a console that is not even advertised as console.
 
Incecticyder said:
No worries, it was a logical conclusion to make considering how I wrote it plus you were not wrong with your points either. I think that having a lack of indepence is hurting game development. If one company is having control of all those studios, then output goes down since the same brains have to check and fund everything. Each of those studios have to ask for "More, please" and the company has only so much "more" to give. Sony went on to buy many studios and now those studios either make costly and time consuming games or they assist other studios (but dev time is always increasing). Same problem MS has right now. When they were independent, at least they could make the games they wanted and they had their destiny at their own hands. Now, "Oh no, Concord failed! They will fire from every studio to cover up for their ineptitude!" is the state at play.
Click to expand...
That's true that a lack of independence is hurting the industry. The irony in the increase in dev time is two fold; 1) Sony/Cerny went an extra mile to make the SSD as fast as possible to reduce dev time, and 2) It's entirely self inflicted (for AAA studios).

Incecticyder said:
There is no point if they do not keep things exclusive. A PC is a better investment now than it was in the past. Nintendo found its niche and great success alongside it. PS5PRO graphics did not impress anyone. Marketing consoles on graphics alone has been a wall that was going to close in.
Click to expand...
PSPRO was a flop and added nothing. I suspect Hulst pulled funding on the software side as Cerny would never have made a console that required EXTRA input from devs in the form of patches to make it work. That, combined with how piss-poor PSSR is, means something went awry along the development of the machine.
Incecticyder said:
Hard disagree. While Sega and MS had some great machines at the start, they fumbled things hard later. It takes more than a good console to make you into a good manufacturer. Sega Japan screwed up with their decisions on the Saturn and the Dreamcast was forced to deal with the aftermath. And I have no idea what MS was smoking after the original XBox. They made a console that dies all the time (the only thing that saved them was the fact that they had even more money than they could spent) and a console that is not even advertised as console.
Click to expand...
The OG Xbox and Xbox 360 - RRoD aside, had hundreds of experimental and different games in their library, especially the former. Likewise, the Master System, Mega Drive and Dreamcast were full of wonderfully weird games and ones that pushed boundaries, created/redefined genres or did something new for the first time.

Microsoft went off the rails and died in 2010. Kinect was the white-flag of surrender that the gamers who ran the department lost the war of the recession to the beancounters.
 
Bog-standard Poster said:
The OG Xbox and Xbox 360 - RRoD aside, had hundreds of experimental and different games in their library, especially the former. Likewise, the Master System, Mega Drive and Dreamcast were full of wonderfully weird games and ones that pushed boundaries, created/redefined genres or did something new for the first time.
Click to expand...
EXACTLY! Great GAMES! The consoles themselves were screwed over. Sega dropped the ball after the Saturn and the Dreamcast had to foot the bill. Same thing goes with MS. RRoD put doubt into people's minds as to their capabilities as a console maker and the One did not help either. My problem is with how they handled the hardware, not the software (they had not screwed up software yet though they did later). Sega Japan altered the release date of the Saturn and pissed of customers, retailers and devs (they never recovered from that) while MS did always something stupid with their consoles after the OG XBox (RRoD, always online & Kinect, stupid name, Game Pass, Series S being hard to work with).

Bog-standard Poster said:
Microsoft went off the rails and died in 2010. Kinect was the white-flag of surrender that the gamers who ran the department lost the war of the recession to the beancounters.
Click to expand...
And they put Rare to make Kinect game for kids instead of what they are used to. Having a legendary studio become shovelware producer is like getting Gordon Ramsay and putting him exclusively on dishwasher duty.
 
Markorian said:
Agree, but that also doesn't mean it was good.
Click to expand...
Right, PS4 was only okay at best, and only looks good by comparison to PS5. It also got a shot in the arm from developer hesitation on going next-gen exclusively.

Bog-standard Poster said:
Sony was never the best of the console manufacturers, Sega and Microsoft were.
Click to expand...
Sony was objectively best for 5th & 6th gen, it's hard to argue against that aside from preference and nostalgia. Nintendo was 2nd and Sega was 3rd, though those generations were so strong that even 4th place was good (Xbox).
 
eDove said:
I figured it mostly was a hardware limitation issue. They probably couldn't be assed to optimize and downgrade it so much that it can passably run on the Switch.
Click to expand...
It’s GTA online.
They don’t see a point in porting it to a platform designed to be used portably without internet access.


They were willing to port RDR1 to switch before PC, so it’s not like they have some personal hatred of the platform.
 
Buttigieg2020 said:
It’s GTA online.
They don’t see a point in porting it to a platform designed to be used portably without internet access.


They were willing to port RDR1 to switch before PC, so it’s not like they have some personal hatred of the platform.
Click to expand...
That is retarded. We do not buy just a single game. Maybe I play one thing on the go and another at home.
 
Hermione Granger said:
GT7 port has been shelved and will no longer be ported to pc.
Click to expand...

So was it Sony that chose to cancel the PC port, or did Kaz's ego kick in so hard that he single-handily threw a tantrum so hard that it stopped the PC port development?

That also doesn't seem to be re-assuring for a possible GT8, or an open-world GT spinoff game that I still hope Kaz's autism decides to make, just to see how well it can do or how badly they'll fuck it up compared to Forza/The Crew/Need For Speed.
 
Bog-standard Poster said:
I was going to say something to that effect because I thought Nintendo was shy when it came to OTT violence like GTA, COD, etc. I know they allow fighting and violent games but don't they have a weird moral code when it comes to gaming?
Click to expand...
No? That’s a stereotype from the Wii/DS era. Maybe Wii U if you’re being generous, but even that had Bayonetta and Isaac. Their only requirement on Switch has been “must have an ESRB rating lower than AO”.
Bog-standard Poster said:
They did hire a literal prostitute as their community manager.
Click to expand...
Do I even want to know?
 
GTA Online as an independent live service game, now it all makes sense. IMG_5512.jpeg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom