5 ms·

> But Sony having some real competition is a good thing. Sony has a bad tendency of anti-consumer tendencies in their gaming space when they are the leader and

> But Sony having some real competition is a good thing. Sony has a bad tendency of anti-consumer tendencies in their gaming space when they are the leader and they get cocky. They did it with the PS3 and they are repeating some of that with the PS5 generation. I'm curious about which "anti-consumer practices" Sony is responsible for, that Microsoft isn't. So far it seems to me that Sony did acquire some gaming studios, but mostly smaller ones. Microsoft has recently bought two big studios with massive franchises, of which some are already not available for Sony platforms.

pjmlp 3y ago
PS2Linux, the way PS3 Linux was a downgrade to PS2Linux, and later removed via firmware update, for example.
- manuelabeledo 3y ago
  That's hardly on their "gaming space", like OP said.
  - pjmlp 3y ago
    I disagree, in any case, publishing deals offering money to studios for them not to publish on XBox like came up on the trials.
    - manuelabeledo 3y ago
      > I disagree Have you played many games on PSLinux? > in any case, publishing deals offering money to studios for them not to publish on XBox like came up on the trials. If you suggest that buying exclusives is a bad thing, then you should agree that buying large independent studios is, too.
      - pjmlp 3y ago
        As owner of a PS2 Linux, I have, from those indie folks you might have heard of, shared via the PS2Linux SCEE forums. PS2Linux was the successor of Yaroze. Exclusives are great for studios. The bad practice is placing bad behaviours on the contract fine print like not allowing for feature parity after the exclusivity deal runs out, or suffering the risk of a lawsuit.
        manuelabeledo 3y ago
        > The bad practice is placing bad behaviours on the contract fine print like not allowing for feature parity after the exclusivity deal runs out, or suffering the risk of a lawsuit. Are you suggesting that e.g. Square-Enix executives didn't know what they were signing? They signed away exclusives in exchange for money. How is that worse than acquiring big studios with large IP portfolios and lock them to your own platforms?
        pjmlp 3y ago
        It is a nice business you have here, it would be a shame if something happened to it...
        manuelabeledo 3y ago
        You make it sound like the poor gaming studios didn't read the contract documents and got trapped in a draconian nightmare. That's a naive take if I have ever seen one.
        pjmlp 3y ago
        Indeed, likewise no one should say the same about OEMs doing deals with Microsoft about pre-installed Windows, or researchers with NVidia. Those mean companies.
        manuelabeledo 3y ago
        You are comparing a 70%-30% market share split in consoles, to a virtually 100% for Microsoft in OEM PC sales, and a >85% for Nvidia in AI and research oriented GPUs [0] Microsoft also controls ~95% of the PC gaming market, which makes up ~40% of the total video game market [1]. So remind me again, which studios were bullied by Sony to give up access to the majority of the market, in exchange for nothing? [0] https://www.reuters.com/technology/amd-likely-offer-details-ai-chip-challenge-nvidia-2023-06-13/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/amd-likely-offer-details-... [1] https://www.gamesindustry.biz/report-pc-and-console-global-gaming-dipped-to-923bn-in-2022#:~:text=Regarding%20the%20market%20breakdown%20by,2.5%25%20of%20global%20game%20spending https://www.gamesindustry.biz/report-pc-and-console-global-g....
  - jayd16 3y ago
    They made it pretty impossible to use so it's not fair to say it wasn't in a consumer space.
  - w0m 3y ago
    still pissed me off when i had the option of losing online gaming or losing console access to my ps3.
    - nebula8804 3y ago
      What were you going to do on that thing anyway? Run a Mandelbrot set? The thing has like no ram! Its just an embedded device to run games.
      - jonhohle 3y ago
        Justifying the removal because of its limitations isn’t fair. It was an advertised feature of the system. If I bought a PS3 to use as a Linux desktop, online multiplayer game machine, and SACD player based on their advertisement and then found I had to get rid of the first two to keep online gaming, on a $600 console, I’d be pretty upset.
      - aleph_minus_one 3y ago
        At that time (before GPGPU become big for such purposes) scientists used PS3s to build cheap (much cheaper than IBM's server offerings containing a Cell processors) computing cluster for HPC. These PS3 computation clusters are were hard to program, but if you managed it, they were really fast (for their time).
        nebula8804 3y ago
        Yeah I hear ya. Think the air force also used it. Lets put aside the fact that Sony was probably unhappy that their loss leader console was being used in this manner(they did release the feature so maybe they could justify the PR bonus of supporting our troops or something). All these researchers probably had no need to upgrade their firmware once they got set up since (correct me if im wrong) no firmware update actually improved the OtherOS functionality in any way so they lost nothing when a new firmware took it away. Only people really complaining about it were using it as a games (or piracy) machine and a Linux box to do...something?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
nerdjon 3y ago
A few things, and I am likely forgetting others: Backwards compatibility: It was a mess on the PS3 with different launch models having different levels of compatibility. They later removed this functionality completely on the PS3. The PS4 had no backwards compatibility for PS3 instead you had to purchase (or subscribe) to play games in the cloud, games you may already own. Compared to Xbox which the Xbox One did not launch with backwards compatibility once the leadership was changed they started a project to bring backwards compatibility to Xbox 360 and OG Xbox games (admittedly on a limited basis but you could stick in your original disks and it worked, no extra charge). This carried over to the Series consoles. Related to this Sony has re-released their games many times and been able to thanks to the lack of proper backwards compatibility. The price of the PS3. The cell processor of the PS3, Sony thinking that devs would bend over backwards to support their architecture. Paying developers either for exclusive content or for exclusive third party games. The content is the one that really drives me insane because if you buy a game on another platform you are getting less content for the same money. Blocking cross play with other consoles for a long time and then only allowing it in certain situations (I don't actually know if this has improved yet or not). There are likely a few others that I can't remember right now but I am about to hop into a meeting. But has Microsoft done some of these things? yes, but before Phil Spensor came in and changed Xbox.
- manuelabeledo 3y ago
  Most of these grievances are more about changes in the architectural direction than anything else. I don't see how using the Cell processor could be considered "anti-consumer". After all, we are talking about a time when consoles didn't generally use "off the self" processors - Nintendo had a customized PowerPC, too. Using more generic architectures is a quite recent development. > Paying developers either for exclusive content or for exclusive third party games. Both Microsoft and Nintendo do this, in different ways. Let's not forget that some of Microsoft exclusives came from Rare and Bungie, studios with a relatively long independent history. > There are likely a few others that I can't remember right now but I am about to hop into a meeting. But has Microsoft done some of these things? yes, but before Phil Spensor came in and changed Xbox. Spencer was the GM all the way back to 2014, so I don't think that's true. On the other hand, I honestly cannot believe that we are discussing if Microsoft is more anti-consumer, or more monopolistic, than Sony.
r00fus 3y ago
This one was pretty bad: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootkit_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootk...
- manuelabeledo 3y ago
  That's not Sony Interactive Entertainment.

pjmlp 3y ago

PS2Linux, the way PS3 Linux was a downgrade to PS2Linux, and later removed via firmware update, for example.

manuelabeledo 3y ago
That's hardly on their "gaming space", like OP said.
- pjmlp 3y ago
  I disagree, in any case, publishing deals offering money to studios for them not to publish on XBox like came up on the trials.
  - manuelabeledo 3y ago
    > I disagree Have you played many games on PSLinux? > in any case, publishing deals offering money to studios for them not to publish on XBox like came up on the trials. If you suggest that buying exclusives is a bad thing, then you should agree that buying large independent studios is, too.
    - pjmlp 3y ago
      As owner of a PS2 Linux, I have, from those indie folks you might have heard of, shared via the PS2Linux SCEE forums. PS2Linux was the successor of Yaroze. Exclusives are great for studios. The bad practice is placing bad behaviours on the contract fine print like not allowing for feature parity after the exclusivity deal runs out, or suffering the risk of a lawsuit.
      - manuelabeledo 3y ago
        > The bad practice is placing bad behaviours on the contract fine print like not allowing for feature parity after the exclusivity deal runs out, or suffering the risk of a lawsuit. Are you suggesting that e.g. Square-Enix executives didn't know what they were signing? They signed away exclusives in exchange for money. How is that worse than acquiring big studios with large IP portfolios and lock them to your own platforms?
        pjmlp 3y ago
        It is a nice business you have here, it would be a shame if something happened to it...
        manuelabeledo 3y ago
        You make it sound like the poor gaming studios didn't read the contract documents and got trapped in a draconian nightmare. That's a naive take if I have ever seen one.
        pjmlp 3y ago
        Indeed, likewise no one should say the same about OEMs doing deals with Microsoft about pre-installed Windows, or researchers with NVidia. Those mean companies.
        manuelabeledo 3y ago
        You are comparing a 70%-30% market share split in consoles, to a virtually 100% for Microsoft in OEM PC sales, and a >85% for Nvidia in AI and research oriented GPUs [0] Microsoft also controls ~95% of the PC gaming market, which makes up ~40% of the total video game market [1]. So remind me again, which studios were bullied by Sony to give up access to the majority of the market, in exchange for nothing? [0] https://www.reuters.com/technology/amd-likely-offer-details-ai-chip-challenge-nvidia-2023-06-13/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/amd-likely-offer-details-... [1] https://www.gamesindustry.biz/report-pc-and-console-global-gaming-dipped-to-923bn-in-2022#:~:text=Regarding%20the%20market%20breakdown%20by,2.5%25%20of%20global%20game%20spending https://www.gamesindustry.biz/report-pc-and-console-global-g....
- jayd16 3y ago
  They made it pretty impossible to use so it's not fair to say it wasn't in a consumer space.
- w0m 3y ago
  still pissed me off when i had the option of losing online gaming or losing console access to my ps3.
  - nebula8804 3y ago
    What were you going to do on that thing anyway? Run a Mandelbrot set? The thing has like no ram! Its just an embedded device to run games.
    - jonhohle 3y ago
      Justifying the removal because of its limitations isn’t fair. It was an advertised feature of the system. If I bought a PS3 to use as a Linux desktop, online multiplayer game machine, and SACD player based on their advertisement and then found I had to get rid of the first two to keep online gaming, on a $600 console, I’d be pretty upset.
    - aleph_minus_one 3y ago
      At that time (before GPGPU become big for such purposes) scientists used PS3s to build cheap (much cheaper than IBM's server offerings containing a Cell processors) computing cluster for HPC. These PS3 computation clusters are were hard to program, but if you managed it, they were really fast (for their time).
      - nebula8804 3y ago
        Yeah I hear ya. Think the air force also used it. Lets put aside the fact that Sony was probably unhappy that their loss leader console was being used in this manner(they did release the feature so maybe they could justify the PR bonus of supporting our troops or something). All these researchers probably had no need to upgrade their firmware once they got set up since (correct me if im wrong) no firmware update actually improved the OtherOS functionality in any way so they lost nothing when a new firmware took it away. Only people really complaining about it were using it as a games (or piracy) machine and a Linux box to do...something?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

nerdjon 3y ago

A few things, and I am likely forgetting others: Backwards compatibility: It was a mess on the PS3 with different launch models having different levels of compatibility. They later removed this functionality completely on the PS3. The PS4 had no backwards compatibility for PS3 instead you had to purchase (or subscribe) to play games in the cloud, games you may already own. Compared to Xbox which the Xbox One did not launch with backwards compatibility once the leadership was changed they started a project to bring backwards compatibility to Xbox 360 and OG Xbox games (admittedly on a limited basis but you could stick in your original disks and it worked, no extra charge). This carried over to the Series consoles. Related to this Sony has re-released their games many times and been able to thanks to the lack of proper backwards compatibility. The price of the PS3. The cell processor of the PS3, Sony thinking that devs would bend over backwards to support their architecture. Paying developers either for exclusive content or for exclusive third party games. The content is the one that really drives me insane because if you buy a game on another platform you are getting less content for the same money. Blocking cross play with other consoles for a long time and then only allowing it in certain situations (I don't actually know if this has improved yet or not). There are likely a few others that I can't remember right now but I am about to hop into a meeting. But has Microsoft done some of these things? yes, but before Phil Spensor came in and changed Xbox.

manuelabeledo 3y ago
Most of these grievances are more about changes in the architectural direction than anything else. I don't see how using the Cell processor could be considered "anti-consumer". After all, we are talking about a time when consoles didn't generally use "off the self" processors - Nintendo had a customized PowerPC, too. Using more generic architectures is a quite recent development. > Paying developers either for exclusive content or for exclusive third party games. Both Microsoft and Nintendo do this, in different ways. Let's not forget that some of Microsoft exclusives came from Rare and Bungie, studios with a relatively long independent history. > There are likely a few others that I can't remember right now but I am about to hop into a meeting. But has Microsoft done some of these things? yes, but before Phil Spensor came in and changed Xbox. Spencer was the GM all the way back to 2014, so I don't think that's true. On the other hand, I honestly cannot believe that we are discussing if Microsoft is more anti-consumer, or more monopolistic, than Sony.

r00fus 3y ago

This one was pretty bad: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootkit_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootk...

manuelabeledo 3y ago
That's not Sony Interactive Entertainment.