Sony Execs Have Big Mouths About PS3

The folks at Sony Entertainment have made a boatload of official statements leading up to and after the release of PlayStation 3. Since then, we've seen Sony take action on occasion against their own words.

Reports and quotes say the current PSN online play will remain free and users will have the option of paying for a premium value-added service, but can we trust that will be the case? What about when PS4 comes out?

Looking back on the history and issues surrounding what's been said in the past from Sony execs about the PS3 controller designs, the system being the high-performance machine of the generation, shooting down the idea of rumble support in their controllers and gamerscore point rewards, and now to a possibility of a subscription based online service - What's in store for the future of PS3, a system which now brings the greatest value for its price tag as we enter 2010.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
mint royale2794d ago (Edited 2794d ago )

Where did this article come from? Abit late to the party isn't it with the ps3 now doing really well.

I agree that Sony deserved a poor start because their arrogance was unbelievable but they seem to have changed and really are focusing on what the consumer wants.

As for why the ps3 is not winning that the article seems so bothered about, well no one saw the huge success of the wii coming and fair play to Nintendo. Well done.

@below, I never said I thought they should fail but I would have been if their arrogance would have been rewarded with good sales because they wouldn't have changed their attitudes. Its good for us they did with amazing games releasing.

Pennywise2794d ago (Edited 2794d ago )

Even with all the arrogance they had the best product on the market. So they should fail because they thought that? Getting a second job comment basically cost crazy ken his job, but he did the right thing by me with the hardware. Sony has really stepped it up and made the competition look bad...

This article is some crybaby rehashing 3 year old stories for hits.


@above... I wasn't saying you said PS3 should fail. This rant/blog did. Stupid kids. Sorry for the confusion.

SasanovaS19872794d ago

dated controller design? lol what? pretty dam sure its better then any controller out there. dont fix what isnt broke. and rumble comes with dualshock controller, so you have the option of buying it or not...
then you make a statement, yes PSN will remain free, but can we trust that? you serious?

epic fail of an article, do yourself a favor and get back to playing multiplatform games on your beloved system

kaveti66162793d ago

Look at how pitiful the writer is. In the sentence I highlighted above, the writer was trying to say that multiplatform games consistently perform better on the 360 in terms of visuals and framerate. However, the writer apparently was in such a hurry to get this article out the door, he didn't bother editing his sh!t, and it shows.

I should start a service where people can pay me to edit their articles.

Saaking2793d ago

Everything that's free now WILL remain FREE. The only thing Sony is charging for is extra OPTIONAL services. They're not forcing you to pay to play half of your games like MS. They're just offering more for those willing to pay. There's nothing wrong with that.

Mr_Bun2793d ago

Why are these blog/rants getting approved? I guess all you have to do is have a .com site, and a piss poor attitude towards one of the consoles....Oh, and belief that just because you have access to a keyboard, people want to know what you are thinking.

I'll sum up this rant for you:

• Author is mad that the PS3 controller didn't have rumble at launch
• Author hasn't read anything about the PS3 since 2007
• Author feels PS4 might charge for online gaming

table2793d ago

I was really hoping n4g wouldn't approve this tripe. It's bad enough as it is but you should have seen how pathetic the article was before it was edited. Sometimes it feels like n4g should be called r4f - rants4fanboys.

Mr Bot2793d ago (Edited 2793d ago )

why in the world should any body that owns or support the xbox live care? XBL cost money to just play online, why the media are not attacking MS for that??

sony can be like bad like MS and make PSN not free if they want to and nobody have the right from the media to complain because surely they dont complain about XBL!!

and way this article just wants to get hits and attention!! i will never click the NEXT button!

Wxer22793d ago

im a PS3 fanboy
and no way in hell im paying to play online
there you have it

Christopher2793d ago (Edited 2793d ago )

None of that made any sense whatsoever.

1. The before/after graphic was CGI/in-game... they never said what he mentioned.

2. The boomerang controller was a prototype they were testing, nothing was ever said about it becoming reality.

3. Rumble wasn't initially provided because of a lawsuit, no other reason.

4. Multilpatform titles have worse framerate on the PS3, but exclusives have higher and better framerate on the PS3. Blame the devs, not the PS3.

5. Sony isn't going to charge anyone for what they offer right now, which is free online play. In fact, their new service is supposed to be primarily an alternative payment method; instead of buying games, you might now be able to subscribe to a service that gives you access to all of them as long as you keep up the subscription.

Raf1k12793d ago

I think their arrogance is partly the reason the PS3 has so much tech inside it.
If they were bothered about making a profit from the start we wouldn't have a console that is so technically superier to all the others on the market.

jadenkorri2793d ago

can you really blame sony. Looking at all the people on xbox live paying for a gold membership to play online. I'm sure sony would like there cut, i know not from MS, but from its own user base. I prefer online gaming stay free, since i obviously don't have a gold membership, but if sony started charging, my mainstream gaming will go back to pc.

2793d ago
sikbeta2793d ago

Is just me, or the writer was using this:


Lame article from the Past to the Future....

Death24942793d ago

Both systems let you play people online. One just charges you to do something as simple as that. I will be getting a Elite 360 though for Halo:Reach. I'm a halo nut, so it's only right.

SilentNegotiator2793d ago

And suddenly, they don't seem so bad!

This article is just a big "Let's cry over things said in 2005" hate article.
Just look at the recent articles column to the left, and their xbox fanboyism becomes quite clear:
* Sony Working On Their Own Project Natal?
* Time Magazine Recognizes Project Natal
* PlayStation Network Paid Subscriptions?
* Ubisoft Favors Project Natal over the Sony Wand?
* November Surprises in Videogame NPDs

zeeshan2793d ago

I wonder if some journalists and gaming websites actually WANT to be known as "stupid". If that's what the author is trying to do here, he/she has done a great job!

2793d ago
RockmanII72793d ago

QFT. I wouldn't of minded them getting a little more humble, but MS needs that more then Sony at this point.

Anon19742793d ago (Edited 2793d ago )

Let's have a look at the points they raise.
"We all agree scrapping the boomerang controller was the best idea Sony had."
Really? You played the boomerang controller? Because, from what I heard from the testers of the boomerang controller was that they were pretty cool, with a kind of "3d rumble" located in various parts of the controller that let you know if you were being shot from behind, for example. The only reason this didn't see the light of day was due to the legal battles Sony had regarding rumble. Now that was a misstep, in my mind. We all know now that it wasn't that Sony didn't want to include rumble, they simply couldn't until the legal battles were settled. Microsoft and Nintendo paid off the company, Sony took it to court. All they had to do was say "We'd love to release rumble but we're in court over it." What was wrong with that?

Achievement like system was missing. Then they added it after listening to what gamers wanted. No problem there. And old games didn't have trophy support - well, duh. There was no trophy support then. Did you expect developers to re-release all their games? How is this an issue?

As for Ken mentioning they wanted the PS3 to run games at 120fps. Yeah, they're still doing this. The 3D games we're seeing demoed now are running at 120fps. Is it arrogant that he stated this considering he's right, the PS3 can run games at 120fps?

As for multplatform games, many developers have commented on programming for the PS3. Not once have they said "nightmare". Most have said "different" That's not quite the same thing.
Now think about your criticism for a second. Sony tried something new and came out with a new, powerful architecture. It's different to develop on but the developers who are are churning out fantastic games we're just not seeing on other platforms. Do you think that's wrong? If they just churned out a PC clone for ease of use for developers, wouldn't they just be making an XBox?

And besides. We know multiplatform games discrepancies aren't an issue for anyone but the pixel counters. 57% of multplats reviewed better on the 360 back in 2007. 2008 the scores lined up. Now in 2009 most reviewers have shifted scoring PS3 games higher. Obviously a shift has happened, even though fanboys choose to focus on the one or two games obviously better on the 360, completely ignoring when the reverse happens and multiplats are obviously better on the PS3.

Now, as for charing for the PSN, this is just rumor. Maybe Sony did consider it but it's been free for 3 years now and this doesn't look set to change anytime soon. Sony wouldn't be doing their job if they hadn't at least considered a scheme similar to Microsoft.

And if you condemn Sony for even considering a monthly fee, I can't wait for your scathing article about Microsoft for actually implementing such a system, forcing you to pay extra to unlock all the game modes on a game you just paid $60 for.

Something tells me such an article might not be forthcoming from this site though.

2793d ago
doG_beLIEfs2793d ago (Edited 2793d ago )

Most if not all of the multis that are or were slightly better on the 360 are due to the fact that these ports only used the Cell's CPU and did not use the 6 SPU's that make the Cell such a beast. The 360 has the 3 CPU's to the PS3's ONE CPU. Without utilizing the Cell's MOST IMPORTANT PART (the SPU's) to handle the a boatload of code to make a game shine like KZ2, UC2, GT5...I find it amazing that the PS3 ported versions
can be as close as they were to the 360's while only using the ONE CPU vs. the 360's THREE CPU's.

The biggest reason 1st or 2nd party PS3 games blow away the 360's 1st or 2nd party games is not because of UE3 or some other, the biggest reason is the 6 SPU's that are stupid fast and can handle all kinds of different code thrown at them.

In the Cell the primary responsibility of the CPU is to decide what to send to each and every SPU along with the GPU to run the game. It is the SPU's that really make the CELL go (just ask ND or any other 1st or 2nd party PS3 developer they have stated this many times yet for some reason so many REFUSE to acknowledge this fact)

KZ2 only used FOUR of the available 6 SPU's, while UC2 used all SIX of the SPU's.

That is why no matter what developers do with the 360...they simply cannot compete with the CELL on a technical level also the speed of half the RAM in the PS3 XDR RAM runs circles around GDDR RAM in the 360. Of course half the RAM in the PS3 is also GDDR RAM but again the 256MB of XDR RAM more than makes up the limited RAM of the PS3. (which has the same amount of RAM as the 360)

I could go on but my post would be to long (it already is)

RAmen and have a Noodly New Year everyone!!!

darthv722793d ago

The core concept of the free to play online would basically amount to limited number of concurrent players in a game. Not the game itself but just how many can play in the same game at once. If you wanted to play max players allowed in the game then you would have to be a subcriber to the premium service. There are many pc games that offer free to play with limitations and paid games with no restrictions.

It really isnt that hard to believe if sony did this. You are still able to play online for free. They certainly aren't disputing that. What they aren't telling us is if there will be restrictions to game size. Take MAG for example. There are various game types with different size player caps. If you are a free member then you can participate in games up to 32 players (just an example). Then depending on your premuim tier level you can play in larger games with more players.

That game uses dedicated servers but there are others that maybe dont. In the free service you are obviously able to play any game that offers non dedicated servers but in the paid service it is dedicated all the way.

Like I said, this is just a thought and it doesnt undermine what sony initally stated in that online would remain free. There is plenty of $$ to be made off subscription based multiplayer. Even sony knows this with everquest as well as other mmo's they run. No way am I saying it will be like live which you basically have no choice to play online. It is flat out pay to play. I just have a feeling sony will do a basic free to play online model with the existing infrastructure. The premium tiers will offer up higher capacity online modes as well as access to store content and various media as part of those levels.

You can disagree but if you really think about what I typed you can see it is still free to play online. In the end we really only have speculation and vague info from a few questionares. Wait for the official word from sony.

Bloodraid2793d ago

I've played through Uncharted 2 twice, and Resistance 2 3 times. Neither game I recall ever experiencing framerate drops.

How is it that games like Dragon Age suffer from framerate drops, while Uncharted 2 doesn't? I don't know... Maybe the developers have something to do with it.

thesummerofgeorge2793d ago

He has a big mouth himself, maybe he should worry about that.

littletad2792d ago

About this "change". Are they really stepping aside and letting the system brand become what it should have been in the first place? Or are they gearing up for another facepalm of features? This being the inclusion of psn subscriptions and the gimmicky device that follows the Wii. We are told the multiplayer function will remain free, but have they ever kept good on their promises?

Let's hope so. Overall, I think this article is a bit late to the party. I agree with all of these rants, we'll except a few, but Sony is in an entirely different position now. One that actually makes me grateful I'm a ps3 owner. If they can keep the same marketing team they've been using with the "Dear Playstation" commercials and keep churning out quality exclusives, then they will topple the 360 in no time.

+ Show (24) more repliesLast reply 2792d ago
Waldex_Encore2794d ago (Edited 2794d ago )

I give to you... an Xbot in its purest form

Its amazing how mentally retarded bastards are premitted to have a blog on internet, is a shame for gamers that things like this are even on a gaming news site.

The PS3 IS the superior console, and the people behind it has been changing, adapting, evolving, giving to the market in these 3 years.

Making a rant like this only demostrates that the animal who wrote this "article" is either a nobody who recives a paycheck from Microsoft to maintain his little blog or a mogoloid with no common sense.

Udidntlistenpunk2793d ago

Peter moore on RROD: "things breaks"

Microsoft on HDMI: "HDMI is not needed"

Microsoft on harddrive: "harddrives are not needed"

Microsoft on Blu Ray: "HD DVD will be the dominant format and Blu Ray will die"

Microsoft on HD DVDs death: "have you heard about digitial downloads? Digital downloads is coming in 2008 and then Blu Ray will die"

Microsoft on movies: "XBOX 360 is a gaming console, we dont watch movies"

Microsoft on exclusives: "its for the XBOX 360"

Turn10 on Flopza 3: "its the definite racing game"

ROFL bots, do you suffer from short term memory syndrome? The one you cant trust out of all three, is Microsoft.

GameRant2794d ago (Edited 2794d ago )

It talks about charging for online play.

That's a brand new topic that Sony is investigating; Not a 3-year old story.

Mr_Bun2794d ago (Edited 2794d ago )

Yeah, they threw in paid online options at the end of the rant....that makes it relevant /s

Sony still maintains that online gaming will remain free....Time to move on

Pennywise2794d ago

GameRant... do some research before posting your rant online to show the gaming community the lack of research you do before posting a Sony hate article.

Sony has stated ONLINE WILL REMAIN FREE. /end you lose.

Mr_Bun2794d ago

I love it when the author of an article feels that they didn't quite get their inaccuracies justifiably portrayed in their own article. They then have to follow up in the comment the sister site for dualshockers?

TOO PAWNED2794d ago (Edited 2794d ago )

I am not going to give hit to this article, and to be honest i am not going to waste my time by reading someones rant..whatever....but judging by title i guess one of his "issues" is potential premium PSn service. Now i have one proof fact or however you want to call it that this article makes obsolete and that is...if you go back and LISTEN to older video interview with Kaz and Harrison(if i am correct) when asked about paying for online service and it being free and will that change...back than they said "FOR NOW THERE ARE NO PLANS to have consumers pay for online....". They never said "WE WILL NEVER take money for online play, if there is such article or video interview, please show it since you are the one writing articles and are trying to prove something that leads to i said rant that was lost in time, this isn't 2007 BUD!