That is delusional.

The PS2 had online multiplayer before Xbox and Sony had Sony Online Entertainment before Xbox had online multiplayer.

Online multiplayer was a natural evolution of the industry. Had nothing to do with Xbox.

This is a misconception. Sony did not learn to make less complex machines from Xbox. Previous Playstations were not necessarily “more complex” or “difficult” to program for. The problem was that they were “different” from PC (specifically the PS3 because PC gaming didn’t really exist until the PS3 released). Developing for earlier PlayStations became easier as developers learned them. But as we all know, developers prefer to take the easier route which is why they disliked the PS3.

The PS3 may have been different but the point of the cell processor was that it could do things that PCs and the Xbox 360 couldn’t. It was stronger than the 360 and was advanced for its time. That was the sales pitch. Sony sold it at a loss and it was actually a bargain in terms of hardware.

If it hadn’t been for Xbox giving developers an easy way out they may have utilized the cell more. Obviously, Microsoft made the OG Xbox similar to a PC because the whole point of Xbox is that Microsoft wants to keep developers on their garbage operating system.

Now consoles don’t have much innovative components over PC like they used to.

The reason why Gabe Newall stated the cell was a disaster is because he is biased towards PC and didn’t like how it used a different architecture from PC which makes it more difficult to port between platforms.

“Sony’s developer friendly policies come after they saw Microsoft eat their lunch with their outreach to developers around the world with the Xbox 360, especially with their at the time progressive policies with smaller, indie developers.”

This is false. Sony has been supporting indie developers before Xbox existed. They’ve always had more lenient indie policies than Microsoft. Sony’s indie push didn’t necessarily have anything to do with Xbox. The reason why indies started booming was because digital distribution gave smaller studios an easy way to distribute their games. It was a natural industry advancement that had nothing to do with Xbox.

There are other flaws in your arguments in this article. The main important here is that Sony competes with PC which is good for the industry. Microsoft doesn’t which is bad for the industry. That is the important difference here. Microsoft uses Xbox to lock developers to their API and operating system which is not good for PC. Xbox exists because it is an extension of their Windows cancer. They just don’t want people buying a Playstation because it doesn’t run Windows. Consoles could die and Microsoft wouldn’t care because the only alternative would be Windows PC. That is why Microsoft treats console gamers like fools and dirt.

I think Sony could use Nintendo for competition but Sony doesn’t necessarily need Microsoft or Xbox. Steam is much healthier competition.

The problem with Nintendo is that they’ve always been rather neglectful of third party developers because Nintendo would rather sell you their own games. Sony is more willing to release exclusives while competing with third parties. Sony was the first console manufacturer that received the most success from designing their platform for third parties, a strategy that Microsoft admitted they copied with the OG Xbox.

You know why you’re paying less today than you did in the 80’s and 90’s for games? Competition. DLC is optional, you don’t have to buy it.
You forget that the ps1 had the n64 to deal with, and the ps2 had the GC.
Competition is never detrimental in an industry like this. It’s the reason why sony backed away from using DRM(they have a patent for it).
Just because sony is killing MS in sales right now, doesn’t mean they have no competition. If it were not for MS, guess how many jobs you would have to work to afford the PS??????

Yeah, when Nintendo ruled the landscape they were a tyrant with developers!
When sony tought they had no competition anymore they came with the “you need two jobs to buy our $600 console”
When MS tought they had enough of the market they came with the allways online/no share games fiasco! Now they give you an extra pc game!

People seem to think that the only way to be a fanboy is if you attack the competition, but it’s just as much a sign of being a fanboy if you can’t see anything wrong EVER with your preferred company.

Yes, that’s the definition of a fanboy right there. Not to be confused with being a fan of something that deserves praise. Fanboys simply cannot tell the difference between the two.

So how come he’s not a real gamer and you are a real gamer. The truth is we are all real gamers but we just play games on different consoles.

If you’re referring to ‘true’ gamers, then that’s different. A true gamer is like a film buff. He respects all great games wherever they come from without prejudice and will want to play the best ones. You cannot call yourself a ‘true’ gamer if you have not played the best games ever made. Some of those happen to be on the PS4, such as The Last Of Us, Uncharted 4 and Horizon Zero Dawn.

They have been sitting quiet in the losers corners for 4 years, so this is their big chance to vent all that frustration and get a bit cocky. You can’t blame them really but MS was the one responsible for it so I’m still going to slap them down with a dose of reality …lol

Very true. Power corrupts and nobody benefits then. Not even Sony. Competition has always been the life blood that has driven the console game industry forward to where it is today with mainstream adoption.

Sony can do no wrong this gen because they have done no wrong, so they have been rewarded. MS did wrong and they paid for it in sales. It’s a very simple concept and nothing to do with being a fanboy.

Yes PS3 had flaws and I complained about them too. CELL was a good idea in theory and very powerful, but it was too hard to program in practice if you were a 3rd party studio working on a tight budget. I stopped buying 3rd party games towards the end because the screen tear and blurred AA was awful. The PS3 price was not a flaw because we got superior build quality for the money. My PS3 lasted the whole gen while the 360’s incinerated themselves and had to be re-purchased.

Yes the PSN breach could potentially have been a serious issue, but thankfully we lost nothing in reality so that is far better than loosing pixels permanently with the XB1 running games at 900p for the whole of a 1080p gen.

If you think the PS3 price was a mistake, wait until you get the XB Scorpio. It arrives too late for the 1080p gen and too early for the 4K gen because most of us still have 1080p TV’s that is being serviced very nicely by the PS4.
We will all be on 4k when the PS5 arrives doing native 4K at 60fps on all games.