by TheNesta » Sat Apr 28, 2012 10:48 am
There's obviously pros and cons to both consoles, and their infrastructures, and the way each company does business. But, when it comes down to it, The X-Box 360 and The Playstation 3 are pretty much the same thing. If you were to match up the software libraries of both systems you'd end up with a pretty similar list. And basically the only thing it really comes down to is a handful of exclusives. For me, it's worth it to have both consoles, and I enjoy them both without really picking sides.
Despite things getting a bit "heated" in this thread, I think there's a lot of truth to what's being said, when you get down to it. As for my part in the conversation, I only got involved with the Playstation All-Stars Battle Royal game. And, if my impressions of that offended anyone, I apologize. I still stand by what I said though, and think Sony will have a tough go at making this thing a success. But, I'm certainly open to the possibility of it being a fun game. And hell, I don't know if you guys noticed in my ramblings, but I actually started to get excited at the prospect of what they could do with the game. Granted, I think all of that stuff is a bit pie in the sky, it still provided me with some interesting insight: Sony has some interesting characters in the backlog.
As for the other allegations against Sony, the company, in this topic, there's truth to some of that too. For instance, Farore saying that Sony borrows a bunch of ideas. This is certainly true, but it's all part of the industry. The video games industry thrives on the borrowing, and innovating of existing ideas. Not only does it allow these ideas to become more polished, but it also generates competition in the market. "Competition?" you say. Indeed, believe it or not competition is more than just a fantastical battle of who is the better company. It also breeds the need to improve on what the competitors have to offer. Thus, we end up with better products in the end. Or at least, that's the idea.
Admittedly though, it's also true that Sony has lifted things a little more...whole-sale. For instance, as was mentioned in this thread: Motion Controls, and Trophies. There's no beating around the bush about this, The Move is an attempt at a Wii cash-in. But, on the other hand, Microsoft is guilty of the same thing with the Kinect. But who can blame them? The Wii had a very successful run, and Sony and Microsoft both believed motion controls were the key. And... where are they now? The Move is pretty much abandoned, and The Kinect, while still popular in certain crowds, really hasn't pumped out anything revolutionary. For my money? They both suck. But I digress.
As for Trophies. Yeah, they're pretty much Achievements. Sure, other people might have toyed with the concept before, but let's not kid ourselves here, Microsoft are the ones who made it relevant. Since then, I think everyone has tried implementing it into their platforms. Not just Sony, but Steam as well. Even Nintendo is just now toying with it, because they're so god damn slow at things. But yeah, it's not really that surprising. For whatever reason people really got into the whole...gamification of games. If that even makes sense.
As for where I fall on that matter, I happen to agree with what seems like the majority of people. Achievements are just more appealing. Why? I don't really think there's a definitive answer to that. If I had to guess, it probably has something to do with the fact that it was there first. So people have had a longer time to amass those points, and get attached to them. Another thing, though this is a little more personal opinion. I like that big meaty Achievement score. It's no nonsense, pretty much, BAM, you get what you see. To this day, I still don't fully understand how the whole Trophy scoring system works. However, I will say that the Platinum Trophies are pretty neat, and that's something Microsoft should probably rip-off. I'm just sayin'
As for Playsation Plus... It's actually pretty neat. I'd really rather not get into a lengthy discussion about which service is better between X-Box Live, and Playstation Network, but the long and short of it is that they both have problems. On the one hand, it's ridiculous that you have to pay for X-Box Live Gold. Ridiculious. I don't care what sort of counter argument you have against it, it shouldn't be the case. When you pay for an X-Box Live Gold account, you get access to online multiplayer, new demos, and various streaming service apps. When you buy a PS3, you get access to all that stuff - for free - forever. I honestly don't know how Microsoft gets away with it. Also with the recent UI changes which have turned the dashboard into one of the biggest clusterfucks of all time, and the fact that most of those streaming apps don't run nearly as well as they do on the PS3, I'm really starting to lean towards PSN being the superior service. Except for a few things...
With PSN, there are still a few issues. For starters, I have had terrible experiences trying to play PS3 games online. I think, now, would be a good time for your XBL counter-argument, and it goes something like this: "You get what you pay for". Another really big advantage that XBL has over PSN is that every XBLA game is required by Microsoft to have a demo. So you can try every game on that service before you buy it. Most PSN games don't get demos, so that's a major bummer. Aside from those two things, which are, to be fair, pretty significant, I think PSN does everything way better than XBL.
Wow, so much for not going into that discussion, huh? ANYWAYS- back to Playstation Plus. Since Sony doesn't charge for it's usual service, it offers a Premium service that gives you access to some neat perks. Discounts for one, which can save you money in the long run if you buy a lot of stuff from PSN. The ability to try out full featured game demos. And, hey, some free games. So, to recap. Basic PSN gives you access to everything XBL does, but if you want to pay for PS Plus, they give you a bunch more stuff on top of that. It's a pretty cool idea, and I've been tempted by the offer a few times. Frankly, I don't see the problem with it.
Final bit about XBL vs. PSN while we're at it. There is one big misconception here, and that's that people on XBL are somehow worse than they are on PSN. I hate to break this to you, but that's simply not true. While it is certainly true that putting an X-Box Headset up to your head in a game full of random racist 14 year-olds is about as intelligent as putting a loaded gun to your head - the fact of the matter is those scumbags are everywhere. Call of Duty players are still Call of Duty players, whether it be on the 360, PS3, or PC. Sadly, you can't escape them. Though, for what it's worth - advantage to Sony, because they don't package a headset with the console.
Okay, I think that about wraps it up. I hope I have mediated the conversation enough. Though, honestly, it wasn't even that bad. True, I haven't been here that long, so maybe it was a real knock-down drag out by this board's standards, but, have you guys been to NeoGAF? Shit is cray cray.
Anyways, tl;dr: Sony is a business, they make business decisions. Some of them were smart, some of them fell a little short. At the end of the day, the Playstation 3 is pretty identical to the X-Box 360, and as it turns out, both are quite good. And, we'll see if Playstation All-Stars Battle Royal was even worth discussing at all later this year.
