Atari Disses Sony

http://www.comcast.net/gameinvasion/...er_disses_sony

Hooo boy. You'd think Sony would have gotten the message by now.

Heh heh, way to go Atari. Nintendo by be my favorite, but it was an Atari 2600 that I first played.

Haha Atari rules..and they may be right but i don't know

Heh.

It really makes me wonder...why do so many developers even make games for Sony consoles? I mean, for the past two generations, my PS1 and 2 have been my personal favourites. This isn't because I think Sony makes good games or hardware or anything, in fact I've known they were full of crap all along, but they just have such large libraries of good games by third party developers. But why do these developers flock to them? I found Gamecube's lineup fairly disappointing, but you'd think these companies would develop for a more affordable console, especially if Nintendo is easier to work with.

I really hope developers work with someone else this time around. I don't want to spend $600.

Welcome to the business world. People trend to forget that video games are a business. Many businesses will put down others. Sony, Atari, and Nintendo are no expections. I support all game companies, I hold no biased towards any of them, but hey.

Heck yes! Thank you Atari! Someone with some pull is finally saying what I've been screaming ever since I heard the PS3's price tag. Lets hope the PS3 is what makes Sony do a "Sega" in the VG market. Long Live the Big "N" !

Originally Posted by Mythos

Heck yes! Thank you Atari! Someone with some pull is finally saying what I've been screaming ever since I heard the PS3's price tag. Lets hope the PS3 is what makes Sony do a "Sega" in the VG market. Long Live the Big "N" !

And what good would that do for the video game market if Sony drops from it? That wouldn't be good for the ecomany since Sony is a major player when it comes to making money, but then again, Nintendo wants to make money as well.

I'm sorry but charging $600 for a game console is unreasonable and it makes me mad. Its the same as the PS2. It only has better hardware. They really ought to stop makeing consoles and start making computers. I can understand paying $600 for a computer but not a console.

Originally Posted by Mythos

I'm sorry but charging $600 for a game console is unreasonable and it makes me mad. Its the same as the PS2. It only has better hardware. They really ought to stop makeing consoles and start making computers. I can understand paying $600 for a computer but not a console.

And Nintendo ought to stop making consoles and start making playing cards and toys again. Yes, I disagree with the $600.00 price tag but hey, that's Sony falut, but you don't have to ger all upset or anything. With your posts, I sense that you are a biased Nintendo fanboy.
What if Nintendo charged over $600.00 for the Wii? Would you still buy it?

Yes, I am somewhat of a fanboy. Most people are a "fanboy/girl" of something.

Originally Posted by Snow_Storm

What if Nintendo charged over $600.00 for the Wii? Would you still buy it?

No, I would not buy it. When I choose to spend a significant amount of money ($100+) on something that is for entertainment value only I take into careful consideration of most/some of my options of what I could spend this money on. The things I consider when buying something like this are:

A. How much I would use it?
B. Have I bought and/or used something like this in the past? If yes, I think about whether my perceptions about that previous product turned out to be correct.

Example: A while back I receved a digital camera for my birthday. Over the course of its use, it broke. I forgot about it. Then this year, through High School graduation and other events I attained a large amount of money. One of the things I thought to spend this on was another digital camera. I ended up spending 1/2 of the money on a computer and not a camera because I knew I would use the computer more because I used my previous computer to death. Also I though about how much I used the camera. I mainly used the camera on trips. As so, I bought the computer because I knew I would get more use out of it than the camera.

C. Price/Product ratio

Explanation: I still had 1/2 of the money after buying the computer so, what was I to do with it? I probly should have saved some of it but, I'm not a person who is prone to saving. I prefer to turn my money into solid things. Anyways, the though of buying a digital camera came up again. I wanted a digital SLR and it seemed the best option at the time because there wasn't anything else I wanted at the time so I looked around on the internet. Eventually more and more information about the Wii became available. Once they announced the price I stared thinking about getting one. All the while I had been thinking about the digital SLR. If I look back at the previous Nintendo products that I have bought or been given I find that I have enjoyed them enough that I find Ninendo's prices to reasonable. Back to the camera, photography is a new intrest for me. Even so I enjoy it very much. Which is why I was looking at a Digital SLR. Once I found a general price range for the D. SLRs I desided that even though I enjoy photography I don't do it enough to justify spending $1000+ on a camera so I down-graded into the $400 range of compact non-SLR digital cameras. I compared the prices of the 2 things I was considering, a Wii or a Casio XSlim camera. Since I enjoy games alot and the fact that a Wii was cheaper than the camera I wanted I felt that I would get more of my money's worth by buying the system.

Now, if I think through it again and change the Wii's price to $600 I would have bought the camera because it was cheaper and I would probably enjoy it almost as much as a Wii. I would also have $200 left over to spend or save.

I really try hard not to buy things on impulse alone. I am biased to Nintendo because all the products I have bought from them in the past have been quality and have paid for themselves manytimes over by saving me from boardom on many occasions.

Originally Posted by Mythos

I'm sorry but charging $600 for a game console is unreasonable and it makes me mad. Its the same as the PS2. It only has better hardware. They really ought to stop makeing consoles and start making computers. I can understand paying $600 for a computer but not a console.

Look at it this way; you own a gaming/computer company such as that of Sony or Microsoft, and you come out with this new system that you believe will be the mother of all systems, you put it into design and it comes out to be this $600 machine that will blow the top off the gaming market(so you think). The only way you are going to make any kind of profit off the console is if you price it for more than you took to make it. The console could have only costed $400 to make; you can't sale it for $450, you wouldn't make hardly any kind of profit. Say you sold 1 million of your consoles at $450, a $50 profit, you'd get $50,000,000. When you have put in $400,000,000 into making it. So the only way Sony is going to make money is if they price their product at a price that is going to give them a substantle amount to payback themselves.

You say that the PS3 is nothing more than the PS2 with better hardware. I ask you then, what is the Wii?

Also, why should Sony quit making consoles, it is a major source of income for them...they made a great system that sells and runs good, and has many avid players, they're not gonna just drop something that makes them billions of dollars every year. Sony isn't that known for their computers anyhow, yes they're known but not as mcuh as the computer giant Microsoft, and they came out with a game system...why don't Microsoft go back to amking software instead of game systems? IT'S ALL ABOUT MONEY.

-NC

Originally Posted by Mythos

A. How much I would use it?

That all depends on how much you play video games.

One of main great things about the PS3 is the built-in Blu-Ray player. Most Blu-Ray players now cost around $1000; but the PS3 only costs around $600 (60GB one). So it's pretty affordable if you take that aspect into consideration. Because Blu-Ray players are backwards compatible with practically every single CD and DVD format--as well as HD-DVD--it can be used as a multimedia hub for any house-hold. So it has a higher consumer appeal and value for both gamers and non-gamers.

It's also backwards compatible with PlayStation 1 and 2 games (which appeals to the gamer market even more); so it might just replace Sony's old systems in some households. I'd say most people would be using it quite a lot.

B. Have I bought and/or used something like this in the past? If yes, I think about whether my perceptions about that previous product turned out to be correct.

It's a multimedia video game console. You can never know about a company until you try out their products (or read reviews about them). Most reviews for the PS3 have been positive though. Now all there is to wait for is a good library of games.

C. Price/Product ratio

There are obvious reasons why the PS3 is more expensive then the Wii and Xbox 360. Namely because it's a top of the line system, it supports HD, and it comes with a built-in Blu-Ray player.

Overall, I'd say the PS3 is a great system. Like I said before, now we just have to wait for a good amount of games to come out for it. It's entirely up to you if you want it I'd be a little more open-minded about the idea of owning one though.

Originally Posted by NobleCucco

IT'S ALL ABOUT MONEY. -NC

You can say that about any company trying to sell anything. You could also say that about most people. Its as simple as "Money makes the world go 'round".

Originally Posted by Dark Link

That all depends on how much you play video games.

One of main great things about the PS3 is the built-in Blu-Ray player. Most Blu-Ray players now cost around $1000; but the PS3 only costs around $600 (60GB one). So it's pretty affordable if you take that aspect into consideration. Because Blu-Ray players are backwards compatible with practically every single CD and DVD format--as well as HD-DVD--it can be used as a multimedia hub for any house-hold. So it has a higher consumer appeal and value for both gamers and non-gamers.

It's also backwards compatible with PlayStation 1 and 2 games (which appeals to the gamer market even more); so it might just replace Sony's old systems in some households. I'd say most people would be using it quite a lot.
It's a multimedia video game console. You can never know about a company until you try out their products (or read reviews about them). Most reviews for the PS3 have been positive though. Now all there is to wait for is a good library of games.
There are obvious reasons why the PS3 is more expensive then the Wii and Xbox 360. Namely because it's a top of the line system, it supports HD, and it comes with a built-in Blu-Ray player.

Overall, I'd say the PS3 is a great system. Like I said before, now we just have to wait for a good amount of games to come out for it. It's entirely up to you if you want it I'd be a little more open-minded about the idea of owning one though.

But what if you have a family like mine where we already have 3+ computers and a TV w/a home theater system hooked up to it? When I buy any video game platform, I buy it to play games. I don't need all the extra stuff. If you didn't already own a decent computer/home theater system I could understand why a PS3 would be a good option. The Wii is the best option for me because I only need a system that plays games.

Originally Posted by Mythos

But what if you have a family like mine where we already have 3+ computers and a TV w/a home theater system hooked up to it? When I buy any video game platform, I buy it to play games. I don't need all the extra stuff. If you didn't already own a decent computer/home theater system I could understand why a PS3 would be a good option. The Wii is the best option for me because I only need a system that plays games.

It really only comes down to personal preference in your case. The PS3's appeal is for absurd connectivity, while the Wii is limited generally over gaming overall. And if you're strictly for the games only for a system, you might as well just buy the 500$ version.

I'm more centered to believe that multimedia systems become a bit appealing when multiple attributes overwhelm the system. Which is exactly what the PS3's doing, enabling more possibilities to the system. I mean look at the things added to iPod. Remember the regular iPod, they then took the concept further to videos, TV shows, and etc. via iPod video.

Originally Posted by LinkZeldaGanon

Heh heh, way to go Atari. Nintendo by be my favorite, but it was an Atari 2600 that I