Some awful Microsoft propaganda needs... filtering
This article was brought to my attention last night and I just couldn't suffer reading through it without gagging. There is so much blatant propaganda in here that we just had to give our two cents. We're not defending the PS3 here, we're just trying to force the writer of this article to report with truth and stop making completely false claims. We're not denying that Halo 3 will rocket 360 sales -- it's true. MGS and FFXIII will rocket PS3 sales, too. But there are some things that need knocked down. Hit the continued link for our rebuttal.Both Shadowrun and Halo 3 are "game changers".
Voice chat on the 360 is a big advantage.
If these games take off, Sony is in trouble
We're not saying that "Sony did it first", because that's not the point. We're not saying Shadowrun and Halo 3 won't be fantastic games -- they probably will be. But what we are saying is that if you're going to write a fluff-piece like that, at least wear a Microsoft hat in your picture, because you look like a fool.
[via digg]
- What? Halo 3, as the author wrote, isn't "the first massive multi-player on-line game for the console" -- in fact, it isn't even an MMO. 16 player versus matches is in no way equivalent to hundreds or thousands of players on a single server. It's not the first MMO anyway -- Phantasy Star Universe came before it. And online versus matches? Those are everywhere.
- Shadowrun is not the "first to connect PC gamers and console gamers together for online play". Ever hear of Final Fantasy XI for the PS2? How about Phantasy Star Universe for the PS2? If you don't know what you're talking about, keep your fingers off of the keyboard.
Voice chat on the 360 is a big advantage.
- Granted, getting a team on TeamSpeak on the computer is pretty tough to do, but voice chat isn't new at all -- nor unique to the 360 anymore. The PS3 does, in fact, support voice chat. I don't have a bluetooth headset, but I've heard people talking on Resistance and Motorstorm pretty much every time I play.
If these games take off, Sony is in trouble
- We'll first use a big quote from this guy, then dissect its untruth: "They don't even do multi-player that well yet, MMOGs are well out of their reach and they have effectively blocked every attempt their PC unit has made to work with their game platform. This creates the very real possibility that Sony PC users will be more likely to choose an Xbox 360 over Playstation 3 if they want to experience cross-platform play."
- So, 40-player online matches in Resistance isn't that well? The great online Motorstorm races isn't that great?
- MMO's are out of Sony's reach? Did you forget about Final Fantasy XI and Phantasy Star Universe again? They also have cross-platform play and if we remember correctly, the 360 version of at least PSU actually does not allow play with PS2 or PC users. Yeah, that's definitely looking forward. Stop blatantly lying.
We're not saying that "Sony did it first", because that's not the point. We're not saying Shadowrun and Halo 3 won't be fantastic games -- they probably will be. But what we are saying is that if you're going to write a fluff-piece like that, at least wear a Microsoft hat in your picture, because you look like a fool.
[via digg]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
OrganicShadow @ Apr 13th 2007 2:41PM
Amen.
Just for clarification though, you can't hear people using voice comm on PS3 unless you have a headset. Also you don't need a Bluetooth headset either, as im still using my PS2 headset.
I like how it says "IF they take off". Umm, we all know they WILL, so why not just cut to the chase and say "i think sony is in trouble". Seriously though, this guy seems like he would even embarrass hardcore 360 fanboys with his apparent ignorance of common gaming phrases like "MMO" and not knowing that PC and PS3 have voice communication too. Pathetic.
Chubbs @ Apr 13th 2007 2:41PM
Pwned lol.
El Payo @ Apr 13th 2007 2:42PM
You don't even need a bluetooth headset on the PS3. I use a Logitech USB headset and it works just fine with Motorstorm, etc.
massive_98 @ Apr 13th 2007 2:48PM
How do you listen to people talking on Resistance?
I thought you needed a headset to hear people talk.
If you have the answer could you send me mail at massive_98@hotmail.com
Cheers.
Dahk @ Apr 13th 2007 2:51PM
Indeed haha I like how he uses those terms. And how hes all fascinated with voice communication.
Although developers are having trouble getting cross-platform play from the ps3 versus the 360. Read the article over at IGN about Team Fortress 2. The game looks absolutely hilarious haha, but if you read the interview, they are having trouble connecting the ps3 network and it is likely that it won't happen. While 360 and PC users do get that for the next one.
Still, that guy does need a Microsoft hat. =).
Mike @ Apr 13th 2007 2:56PM
Voice chat really does help a lot. Especially in games requiring teamwork, such as FPSs. This is kind of why I don't play Resistance online much, because instead of a team actually trying to go out and work together it is just every person for themselves, that isn't very fun. Also PSO/PSU weren't MMOs because you could only play with 4 people in the actual game, if you count online games with game lobbies as MMOs then there have been several MMOs before PSO.
KillarClown @ Apr 13th 2007 2:57PM
I can't wait for this guys next article about how the world is flat and the sun revolves around us. Science be damned!
Derka @ Apr 13th 2007 3:10PM
Sony needs to package a headset with the PS3. Also component/HDMI cables would be nice as well.
lordroba @ Apr 13th 2007 3:17PM
the internet is a series of tubes!
RangerPrimeX @ Apr 13th 2007 3:43PM
I think this is more of a situation you see when a "PC" guy talks about console systems then someone trying to hide their MS hat. All systems have their pros and cons. Sony has a high price point especially since they have dropped the 20GB unit. MS should have released the Elite at a lower price point and retired the core pack. Let's say $349 for Premium and $449 for Elite and the add-on HD for $129. As for Wii, it needs good games and sooner rather than later.
Sony will be hurt more if they lose MGS or FF as exclusives or if they slip into next year.
James @ Apr 13th 2007 4:17PM
Can I just point out one more thing in MMO space? Sony owns SOE, which pretty much owned MMOs before WoW came along. EQ, SWG, Planetside, etc. etc. etc. There's no way that they can claim Microsoft has the upper hand in MMO. Sony has its hands in enough development IP that they could produce an MMO pretty quickly - such as Home.
Oh and Dahk, you're a moron. Sorry, but there's no way they release TF2 as a single player game. The article didn't say they were having trouble - they said an outside developer (EA UK) was doing the code and they hadn't completed it yet. That's not "we're having trouble and it ain't going to happen," that's "they're on the other side of the ocean and an independent outfit so we don't drive their development as much."
Mr Khan @ Apr 13th 2007 4:57PM
Damn, that's just a new level of ignorant. Does this guy bear any relation to Jack Tretton, Perrin Kaplin, Ken Kutaragi or John Romero?
andres @ Apr 13th 2007 5:02PM
Dude hate to break it to you but since WoW came along it killed EQ2 hell EQ1 killed EQ2. planet side is so close to being dead that they had to offer a free year to new subscribes. SWG which had a major flaw of coming out before it was finished (imperial bug anyone) that it lost a ton of players before they did there face lift and lost even more. Hell rumor has it that Lucas arts is attempting to take the game away and start new one.
And then there is Matrix Online....ya lets ignore that.
I was going to write about FFXI begin a PC game but I Decided not since you clearly spoke on the ps2 version be cross platform. However the same CAN be said for the PC version. Since it came out first on the PC it is technically a PC game ported to PS2 however since they both connect to each other it depends on your view you can say that PS2 version made it possible which is true. Or if you get the PC version you can say the pc version connects both are the same argument it just depends on which side you want to speak on. So I will not argue on the FFXI comment.
Phantasy Star Online was the first to be as you said MMO and that came out on the DreamCast
andres @ Apr 13th 2007 5:06PM
And as far as "Pwning" anyone he "pwned" you guys. Since he wrote this article I've seen it posted on nearly every gaming site.
Seriously if this guy is spreading as you say lies and half truths. Why do you guys just ignore it. Cause frankly this guys article is now being read by everyone which means what ever site its on is getting more hits which means possibly more money in advertising.
roxya @ Apr 13th 2007 5:45PM
"I was going to write about FFXI begin a PC game but I Decided not since you clearly spoke on the ps2 version be cross platform. However the same CAN be said for the PC version. Since it came out first on the PC it is technically a PC game ported to PS2"
WRONG. FFXI at first was released in Japan, exclusively on PS2. It was then ported to PC for the American market.
David @ Apr 13th 2007 6:01PM
To Adres:
FFXI was originally developed for the PS2 NOT the PC. Do a little research, FFXI released on PS2 in Japan, it was not doing so great so they decided to port it to PC AFTERWORDS, to maximize the subscriber base.
Yes, FFXI released on PC in U.S. first, simply because SCEA took too long to release the HDD, the point is that the game was developed for the PS2 and then ported to the PC.
A quote from Wikipedia for you, " Final Fantasy XI (ファイナルファンタジーXI, Fainaru Fantajī Irebun?), also known as Final Fantasy XI: Online or simply Final Fantasy Online, is a massively multiplayer online role-playing game developed and published by Square Enix Co., Ltd. (then known as Square Co., Ltd. at the time of the Japanese release). It debuted in Japan on the Sony PlayStation 2 video game console on May 16, 2002 and was released for Microsoft Windows-based personal computers on November 5 of the same year. It was then localized and released for the North American market on October 28, 2003. An Xbox 360 version was released worldwide in April 2006 as the system's first MMORPG."
Konchu @ Apr 13th 2007 6:31PM
Actually Quake 3 on Dreamcast also offered PC vs console play.
andres @ Apr 13th 2007 6:36PM
First. its Andres. I took the time to learn your name David it would be nice if you would do the same.
Second. I never trust Wikipedia sorry something about anyone going in and changing what it says I cant trust.
Third. Its my mistake. I stand corrected. FFXI came first on the PS2. However then with your statement that it came out first on PS2 then the argument stays the same. HOWEVER you can give more footing to the PC version that allowed for cross platform to exist. Which takes the argument away from the PS2.
However again its one of those circle arguments.
JimyD @ Apr 13th 2007 7:34PM
I agree with Derka on including a headset with the PS3 (either a USB or a basic bluetooth model) since there are too many people who do not use voice chat, which cripples team-based games.
ck @ Apr 13th 2007 8:48PM
Take a look at the bottom right of the page. "Microsoft Expert Zone Member". There's your answer about the extreme bias.
Ryval @ Apr 13th 2007 11:27PM
Btw, to hear the voice chat in resistance you need to edit your accessory audio settings, you can select the output... and change it to "System Default Device" which will output the talking to your TV's speakers. Or just suck it up, spend the money on a USB or Bluetooth headset and really get into the game.
Bangbang... @ Apr 14th 2007 1:08AM
I think he is confusing Halo with Huxley. Huxley IS an MMO, and It Is The First Of Its Kind. Its the first cross platform MMO FPS.
Im not trying to support this guys clear bias,or lack of real information, but the PSN as it is right now is a joke. You guys have already described How the voice chat is broken(you can only hear voice chat if your using a headset). Gamers are sepreated because the service has a friends list for Every game instead of just One universal list of people (No Soup For You!). And even if there was just one list, there are only a hand full of games that support online play (No online versus in VF5, wtf?)
I cant think of one good reason that developers would forgo online support, espically since Every PS3 has access to free online match making. Maybe the devs are lazy or sony isnt allowing it because the network isnt ready yet, IDK. But in my opinion the PSN is a joke.
Dahk @ Apr 14th 2007 1:38AM
James, I don't think you got my point lol.
I said CROSS-PLATFORM play wouldn't happen on ps3. Obviously the thing is GOING to be network play! Its friggin team fortress. But it won't be able to play with PCs and 360s at the same time. Its being developed by EA UK and so lags behind a week or two in development as well.
KeVil @ Apr 14th 2007 5:27AM
Re: Adres
Yes I couldnt be bothered learning your name. Learning your name, wtf? It's called a typo. You don't believe wiki?? That's pretty convenient when someone uses it to denounce your point in an argument. In any case the argument makes no sense. Both versions are required for cross platform play, you know cross platform requires more than one platform.
The article is without merit. Enderle never has a clue what he's talking about. Anyone who calls Linux a scam is an obvious nut case.
Andir3.0 @ Apr 14th 2007 10:24AM
Considering andres isn't capitalized in the comment space (meaning that Andres him/herself didn't capitalize it when they submitted the comment) points out that the intelligence level your dealing with here is in the range of people you probably don't want to deal with. So, I'd correct, ignore, then move on.
If it matters though, FFXI was developed for the PS2 first, and popularized on the PC. It wasn't "ported" but was developed for both platforms.
solidecho @ Apr 14th 2007 10:31AM
-.- You are not all that bright about MMOs are you? FFXI and PSU are not the only MMOs out there for the consoles.....
PS1 had an MMO, PS2 had 3 MMOs, Xbox was supposed to have a few MMOs, Xbox 360 has 2 MMOs (one more coming this year possibly) and the PS3 has like 3-6 coming in the next 2 years.
Triforceowner @ Apr 14th 2007 5:40PM
Nick Doerr sounds mad about this article, but you can tell he loved shutting an easy argument down to make his brand look great. See, Rob Enderle is just six years late to the party. He commends Microsoft for all these voice and multiplayer innovations, (and uses terms like MMOG incorrectly, mind you) when all these things were available five years ago! As RangerPrimeX said, "I think this is more of a situation you see when a 'PC' guy talks about console systems then someone trying to hide their MS hat."
Ahrooon @ Apr 15th 2007 12:17AM
ok i own a 360 and love it but that guy who wrote that article is an ass. and if i may i wouldnt be braggin about ff11 cause it sucked, i only come to this site to find out anything i can about socom 4 and when or if its gonna be released
atsui @ Apr 15th 2007 7:49AM
I think the world being 90% gullible, you have to worry about sony's propaganda. Afther a few months of good blue ray sales they kept having spokesmen of sony come out, showing up everywhere from magazines, newspapers, websites on how they won the war. If that isn't spin I don't know what is. Knowing how people are extremely gullible, they eat words without figuring shit on their own, or being just fanboys about it. They are giving peoples hopes up, those who support the format and people thinking of buying a hd dvd player.
F***ING SONY!!!
PS, I like sony in ways, I love their electronic devices like tvs, and I like ps2.. I just have huge issues with some of what sony does, like their obsession over drm and them spinning shit all the time.
san @ Apr 15th 2007 10:11AM
You know, the PS3 vs. 360 war is getting just plain boring. The facts are, if the PS3 isn't cheaper than the 360, considering what is included, it's an equal-value proposition. The PS3 as a computing device is more powerful than 360, capable of better physics effects, and combining the power of the CPU and GPU, better graphics. This will within a year, in the context of 99% of exclusive and multi-console games, not matter one bit -- ports from one system to another will look, and sound, just as nice as on one console as the other. You'll see highlight titles that look amazing in their own ways from developers especially good at developing for PS3 or 360 hardware. That's perhaps a good reason to own both systems.
Right now, you'll enjoy a wider variety of good games for 360. It has a year's lead. By holiday season this year, that won't matter, as PS3 will have more good games than you have time to play, and I predict the variety will be better than 360s sports and FPS/shooter heaviness -- which is what 360 people want, which is fine, but they'll have some trouble ramping up the variety.
BD is probably going to take the States and Japan, while HD DVD just might take the EU and EU studios if the HD DVD camp is smart and keep their efforts to win there in full force. This will leave us worldwide with two formats, which in theory is worse for the consumer, but in practice, since DVD has region encoding, a single global format hasn't done us all that much good, anyway. BD will win the high-end data-storage format war everywhere.
PS3 has longer legs than 360. Although a year later than 360, it's power and architecture will carry it at least 3 years longer, if not more, than 360. That means Microsoft will have to develop and sell another winning system -- yes, 360 is a winner and will stay a viable console product for the foreseeable future -- to people who are getting more and more tired of coughing up more and more money for games consoles, especially considering you now need the HDTV and 5.1 digital audio rig around it to get the full benefit. So there's a problem there: You waited for the hoopla to die down and finally bought a 360 this past Christmas. Then you'll buy an HDTV and capable A/V system to go with it, and it'll be like a new console all over again. Then in a year to two, again waiting out the hoopla and noting all the excellent titles available, some exclusive, for PS3, and hey, you want a BD player to go with your home theater, anyway, you'll buy a PS3. You might buy a Wii in there somewhere, because it's not too expensive, for the casual games or because you have kids, or both. You'll have in three years spent a lot of money to play HD games and HD movies, not even counting buying actual games! About that time Microsoft is going to be ramping up to asking you for another US$400, probably $500, to buy their new system so they can meet or surpass the power and technical specifications of PS3.
That's where this thing will break out: not whether Sony or Microsoft can stay in the game with PS3 and 360, but whether Microsoft can stay in the game when in only a few years they try to leapfrog Sony and sell you a new system to replace your 360. And even if that thing does real-time ray-tracing, it's going to be a hard sell. (Strong indicators Microsoft is having some consumer orientation issues: $180 for 120GB so they can *sell* you downloadable content? $480 for the Elite 360, with that hard drive, HDMI -- which, you know, two people actually need, especially considering there is a $40 VGA cable available and the HD DVD camp is about nowhere near going to put copy protection or any other restrictions on their discs while they are under-selling BD -- and an HD DVD player, a format with much less studio support in the States, and missing pretty big studios on top of that. What? No HD DVD player included in the Elite version? That's another $200 on top of the premium $480 price? You've got to be kidding. But it's black; oh, okay.
The weird thing is that Microsoft was doing things so *right* with the 360 and Xbox Live, but now, for some weird reason, they're putting their hands out for your cash, not for more games, but for peripherals you don't need unless you want to spend even more money buying things from them, and whole new versions of their console that make no sense unless you can't stand any electronic device that isn't black. Oh, and no price cut on the current hardware.
This is called, politely, over-reaching -- there are other terms not suited for mixed company -- and with two competing consoles on the market, it's a bad time to do it.
John @ Apr 15th 2007 3:40PM
@san,
Yeah, it's funny, the Elite is almost admitting that they didn't do it right the first time.
Now, they have THREE systems. One without a hard drive, which is hampered, one without HDMI, and one WITH HDMI...
And do any of them have wireless connectivity?
Suddenly the PS3 is a value, which most of us knew, all along.
I would support the 360, except that Microsoft keeps trying to tell us it's better than the PS3.
Oh, and except for Gears of War (which is gorgeous but I don't care about, since I'm not too into FPS), they're really not offering a cornucopia of stuff.
With the PS3, there are a number of free downloadables, and the online service is free.
The only reason I would buy a 360 is Forza 2, but after watching the demo, I'm not so impressed.
The guy kept saying that they had damage, to the cars. He then proceeded to run into a wall at 60+ mph, and there was hardly any damage to the car.
If you run into a wall at 40 mph, the car is destroyed.
In other words, their damage model is not realistic. And this has been Sony's whole thing, they have held off on realistic damage-modeling because 1) manufacturers wouldn't allow it and 2) until now, they didn't have the means processor-wise to compute it.
So MS 360 comes out and says they have damage modeling, they run into a wall at a ludicrous amount of speed, and yeah, there's damage... too bad it's not anywhere near realistic.
And yet they try to say that they have realistic physics.
I'm also turned off by all the returns, all the red rings of death, all the failed xbox's. Microsoft is not a hardware company.
Notice that Sony has not had any returns in anywhere near the amount of Xbox's.
They did that right, they're playing their cards well, and despite the haters, they are going to succeeed.
Even if the Sony were less powerful than the Xbox, I would tend to support it, because
1) the xbox doesn't have very good or original games,
2) it breaks down a lot
3) Microsoft indulges in guerilla warfare and disinformation to try to subdue their competition, which is basically an intellectual form of penis envy...
I would just feel yucky playing a Microsoft product, I wish they would be honest.
The Xbox360 is not a bad machine, and Gears of War proves this.
But they don't have the greatest games, and then you have to deal with that whole paying money to be online thing.
It's backed by Bill Gates, and he's a creepy bastard.
Sure, Sony is a corporation, and as such, they do the things that corporations do.
But their games are more diverse, and I feel like I'm playing with art, whereas with Microsoft, I feel like I'm being manipulated, and I feel like the people who coined the games are manipulated, like they're not in it for the art, they're in it for the money.
So I think of picking up a 360 for Forza 2, but then again, for less money I could buy a Wii, have a PS3 and a Wii, and the games for those systems would tide me over until GT5 comes out.
And of course, I can always play the PS2's GT4, on my ps3.
Why would I buy an Xbox360 when I can play GT4 on my PS3?
Brian Spence @ Apr 16th 2007 9:17AM
To OrganicShadow: You don't have to have a headset to listen to voice chat. I haven't tried it with Resistance, but I don't do the voice chat thing and I would hear people talking all the time on Motorstorm.