I Am a Sony Fan

First of all, I would like to direct everyone to my new boyfriend Domi's blog post here.  This post is in response to his.  Also, yes. I said new boyfriend.  And yes, he is a catboy.  I have mentioned Domi before here and briefly here, here, here, and here.  We've been friends for a while and I believe we always will be.

Anyway, back to the topic.  For anyone too lazy or with too short an attention span to read Domi's post, it is about the various game systems and the future of gaming.  In this post, he brings up a few good points.  Now while Domi is a Nintendo fan and I am a Sony fan, we are both rational people and can see the highs and lows of the systems we love.

Here, Domi says,

"First of all, WHY ALL OF THESE USELESS REMAKES OF THE PSP? I mean, you knew Nintendo was doing something big in handheld, don't you think it would be a better idea to release a NEW handheld system that addresses the issues of the original PSP?? I mean, most people have been pratically BEGGING for a second joystick on the system. Does the PSP Go have that? No. It has your standard, one control stick, which if you've ever played a Playstation ANYTHING, you know that the dual joystick is what helped it when it's first two console wars (PS1 vs. Nintendo 64 vs. Sega Genisis/Saturn, and the PS2 vs. Gamecube vs. X Box vs. Dreamcast (poor, poor Dreamcast)). So when you try to put a lot of favorites on the PSP, naturally their gameplay is going to DEMAND TWO JOYSTICKS, even if its for something just as simple as camera control (which, I might add, is one thing that has ruined what otherwise would have been really good PSP games). Secondly, why did you think the replacement of physical UMD's was going to be a good idea? I mean, some games (I.E. Birth By Sleep, one of the most highly anticipated PSP games), is not playabe on the download-only PSP Go. SO yeah, if you were a PSP Go owner who was looking forward to play Birth By Sleep, then I guess it sucks to be you, huh? AND ON TOP OF THAT, you're asking to retain your original versatility of having pictures, music, and video on your memory, but now you wanna add FULL ON GAMES too??? I mean, the 360 can get away with that becuase it's capable of having 250 gigs worth of memory. The PSP Go, does not. The PSP go isnt even capable of half that. And then my biggest problem with the device is, WHY DID IT DEBUT AT DAMN NEAR THE SAME PRICE AS THE PS3??? I mean, really??? PSP Go, at its debut, was only $50 cheaper than the PS3. FOR WHAT PURPOSE? I mean, at least in the PS3's defence, it does do quite a bit, on top of playing it's average at best games, so I could at least justify it's price. BUt the GO is not capable of a lot of things the PS3 could do. So long story short, if you're gonna buy a PSP, don't buy a Go. Or if you're just looking for handheld, turn to Nintendo."

I would have to agree that PSP Go is not worth the price.  There aren't any good games that you can only play on the Go.  Any add ons you had for your PSP are not compatible with the Go.  The Go has less memory for anything you'd actually enjoy.  And just as Domi says, it didn't address the problems with the original PSP that gamers had.

I actually wasn't a big fan of the PSP in the first place.  When I originally thought of the words "Playstation Portable" I thought it would be a portable version of the Playstation, much like portable DVD players are portable versions of DVD players.  But no.  PSP was another system altogether.  You cannot play PS, PS2, or PS3 games on your PSP.  You can only play PSP games.  Therefore, in my opinion, PSP should not have been called Playstation Portable.  It should have been called Sony Handheld, or something that was not related to Playstation, because in every way except, to some extent, gameplay, PSP is not like Playstation at all.  I think the differences between making a portable DVD player (which Sony has done, and had done before coming out with PSP) and making a portable Playstation are slight enough that they could have done that and revolutionized portable systems.

Domi also said,

"So now we come to the big one. Console games. So first we have to identify, who are the major competitors in the console wars. Right now, Microsoft and Nintendo. Why not Sony you ask? Simply becuase, it seems like with every turn, Sony is playing catch up. The only real advantage the PS3 has that some other console doesn't is that it plays Blue Ray. That's it. Good PS3 exclusives are few and far between (even so much so that Final Fantasy, a game that for the LONGEST time was Sony exclusive, is now on the 360), and most of the good PS3 games can be played on the 360 as well. Now all of this probably wouldn't have kept it out of competition had it not tripped up so bad early on. I mean, numerous bugs, zero backwards compatibility, and the ability to do everything BUT play games, kept it from taking off, and unfortunately, it's a little too late for them to really catch up."

Ouch.  To me, a die-hard Sony fan, this was a slap to the face.  But perhaps this slap is what Sony needs.  Because, painful as it is, it's true.  Sony has always been really good at taking existing technology and making it ten times better, but not so good and coming up with stuff of its own.

PS2 was the peak of Sony's gaming line.  PS2 did so well that PS2 is still being manufactured and sold and new PS2 games are still being produced, albeit at a decreasing rate.  PS3 is a lost cause, but because Sony spent so much money on it, they cannot abandon their project, and therefore the Playstation will eventually fall.  This is a sad but realistic truth.  If Sony wishes to remain a contender in the console battle, they must come up with something completely new; something that hasn't been touched by Nintendo or Microsoft.  They need to stop playing catch up and do something that will force Nintendo and Microsoft to catch up with them, instead.

So what do I think the future of gaming is?  I can't say for sure what will continue to advance for years on end... but I can guess what will happen next.

I think that Nintendo will reach its peak at the 3DS.  It may recreate it nicer and newer, which the X-Box 360 has and is succeeding with, but Nintendo won't be able to advance further in the handheld realm.  They may attempt to improve and advance the Wii, but as Domi says,

"Yeah it's true that the Wii has sold nearly twice the amount that the 360 has sold, but at the same time, at kick off, the Wii was really popular. But (and while it really does pain me to say this), the Wii's popularity has severely decreased since it's launch, do to problematic controls with some games, and very little decent 3rd party support. Not to mention the small variety of good games for it. There aren't many FPS, RPGs, or anything of that sort on the Wii. But a lot of kid friendly games."

I doubt the Wii will do much better remade.

The X-Box 360 is very successful and may continue to succeed for a long time, but Microsoft doesn't seem to have much interest in advancing their gaming system beyond adding games and making the system nicer.  This is appealing to gamers who don't have endless amounts of money, but will likely be their downfall, even if the downfall is far in the future.

In my opinion, the best bet for a future in gaming is a completely new system with new audience appeals that have not yet been addressed by other gaming systems.  This will likely be put out by a new company altogether.  Sony has the potential to put something like this out, but I do not realistically see them making ground-breaking gaming discoveries.  They're not usin' their brains, and as a Sony fan, this saddens me.

However the future plays out, I am looking forward to it... Because Sony fan or not, I am a gamer, and will enjoy any good game regardless of who released it.

Until next time,
Cap'n Kyrie