Shut up Sony...

Post by **GhaleonOne** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 5:34 am

http://www.gamesarefun.com/news.php?newsid=7243

Really, they need to just tell their American executives to shut the hell up. They continue to make jackass comments. I hope what happened to Nintendo between the SNES and N64 era's happens to Sony right now. Nintendo got extremely arrogant in those days, and they fell flat on their arse. I really hope the same happens to Sony, because they're worse than Nintendo ever was back then.

Really though, Wii has no backwards compatibility? What is this guy smoking? Sure, technically, you could say that the VC isn't technically backwards compatibility, but he's still wrong. The Wii plays GameCube discs.

Post by **Kizyr** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 5:48 am

By backwards compatibility, he means that it can play games backwards. You know, like spinning a record in the opposite direction to hear the hidden messages.

So, he's right. The Wii can play Gamecube games, but it can't play them backwards! KF

Werefrog · Post by **Werefrog** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 6:17 am

Really, Sony executives honestly need to shut up. This is Sony's last shot at the Gamecube before the next gen. Basically, this guy is saying that Wii has no backwards compatibility because the Gamecube had no games worth playing. That's how I read it at least. Maybe he was just ignorant, but I was pretty sure he was just being an ass.

Honestly... I'd much rather have a next-gen system that can play GC games than PS2 games. I really enjoyed the first Playstation but something seemed to be missing with the PS2. I would like to know which 200 games aren't going to be compatible.

With Sony being so defensive, I'm starting to wonder if some of the most popular PS1/PS2 games are among the list.

Zophar · Post by **Zophar** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 9:12 pm

Werefrog wrote:
I would like to know which 200 games aren't going to be compatible.

Me too. I am sort of worried as to what those 200 games are. Hopefull they aren't anything that I have. Wait, is the 200 a combination of PS1 games and PS2 games that aren't compatible? Or is it just 200 PS2 games?

Werefrog · Post by **Werefrog** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 10:26 pm

Zophar wrote: Me too. I am sort of worried as to what those 200 games are. Hopefull they aren't anything that I have. Wait, is the 200 a combination of PS1 games and PS2 games that aren't compatible? Or is it just 200 PS2 games?

I could have sworn that I simply read Playstation on a website earlier today. This can mean two things: 1) It's just PS1 games that are having trouble (which would make sense as I would guess that backwards compatibility would be harder to produce for an older system) or 2) I was reading some mainstream news source that doesn't realize that it should differentiate the two.

Well, I guess you could always use a PS emulator since the PS3 can use Linux (yay!) even though those aren't always reliable.

Blue_Sycro · Post by **Blue_Sycro** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 11:16 pm

Doesn't Sony understand that it's already screwed as it is? If they want to make things better perhaps they should try, oh I don't know, shutting up when they don't know what they're talking about?

I'm just waiting to see Nintendo take the crown back once and for all

LuNaRtIc · Post by **LuNaRtIc** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 11:51 pm

First day, and I'm already getting sick of hearing about all this PS3 junk... e__e That man's a moron, that's all I have to say. I'm still going to favor Playstation over Nintendo though. .___.

Benevolent_Ghaleon · Post by **Benevolent_Ghaleon** » Sat Nov 18, 2006 4:29 pm

My grin gets a little wider with each ignorant decision by Sony.

Rimmie · Post by **Rimmie** » Thu Dec 07, 2006 5:36 pm

Every time I make an opinion about something I've never been right in the middle of before, I end up choking on my own foot, so I'll just say that I play games that are fun. So if I want a ps2 game, I'll have to get a ps2 if the ps3 doesn't want to deal with that. And I love my cute little ps, and would be heart broken if anything happened to it anyway.

Benevolent_Ghaleon · Post by **Benevolent_Ghaleon** » Thu Dec 07, 2006 5:39 pm

Rimmie wrote:Every time I make an opinion about something I've never been right in the middle of before, I end up choking on my own foot, so I'll just say that I play games that are fun. So if I want a ps2 game, I'll have to get a ps2 if the ps3 doesn't want to deal with that. And I love my cute little ps, and would be heart broken if anything happened to it anyway.

........what?

DeathBeforeDenial · Post by **DeathBeforeDenial** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 8:51 am

The only think I yearn for more than Sony choking on their own pride and arrogance is EA Games beaing dismantled. But that's another debate.

I am hoping that Sony will start to alienate level-headed third party developers such as Konami and Capcom sending them running for Nintendo or even Microsoft, whom I would like to see get a larger share of the market.

But more than that I am waiting for the fans to start realizing that Sony is not making games for <I>you</I> (The fans) any longer. They are telling you what to like and shoving expensive and unecessary hardware in your face telling you that you need this and that. Sony spends all this time on specs and statistics they have castrated their system before most people even have a chance to play one. It has become this cold and dry sort of thing that offers you specs more than it offers fun.

Look at the advertising, Wii advertisements all display the FUN you have with the system, offering interactivity, joy, happiness, and community interaction. The PS3 and it's weird ass advertising offers nothing more than a dry and confused feeling that is reminiscent of the time you stumbled into the modern art area of a museum.

Agawa · Post by **Agawa** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 5:16 pm

Wow, http://digitalbattle.com/2006/07/04/rac ... te-psp-ad/ is pretty disturbing. It's an ad for the PSP that ran in Europe, and I don't see how Sony's marketing group didn't see it as racist.
Considering that and the failure that was their "hip" blog, I think they really need a new marketing company. (http://www.alliwantforxmasisapsp.com/blog/default.aspx)

Benevolent_Ghaleon · Post by **Benevolent_Ghaleon** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 5:19 pm

Agawa wrote:Wow, http://digitalbattle.com/2006/07/04/rac ... te-psp-ad/ is pretty disturbing. It's an ad for the PSP that ran in Europe, and I don't see how Sony's marketing group didn't see it as racist.
Considering that and the failure that was their "hip" blog, I think they really need a new marketing company. (http://www.alliwantforxmasisapsp.com/blog/default.aspx)

The hilarity lies in the fact that the black girl in the billboard actually allowed herself to be degraded to such a degree.

Post by **Alunissage** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 8:17 pm

Are you really so naive as to think that professional models for these things select the jobs they take based on the ethical principles espoused by them? It's not like the photographers went into someone's home and said "You look like you feel inferior and easily dominated, let's use that in our ad!" No. They're hired to do a job, just as actors portray characters in situations they personally may not approve of.

Now, if you were talking about the females who allow themselves to be photographed for swimsuit issues and other sexually enticing media, I might agree with you.

Benevolent_Ghaleon · Post by **Benevolent_Ghaleon** » Fri Dec 15, 2006 7:04 pm

She was still put into the position of "okay. now the white model is going to grab your face and stare downward toward you." and she went along with it. That's where i'm humored. It seems like you think that i thought she saw an ad that said "WANTED: black female with no self-esteem".

PrettyGirlJean · Post by **PrettyGirlJean** » Fri Dec 15, 2006 11:45 pm

There were some pretty good responses to the ad. If someone hadn't pointed out it was racist, I wouldn't have given it a second thought. Really. It's an ad for a black and white psp. I agree with some of the posters about how it's not racist at all, except if you want it to be.

But maybe it's because I'm not racist that I don't see the contraversy of it. I think Sony got exactly what they were hoping for. Free advertising. That's really all that's going to be accomplished by people hating on it. Even if they have to discontinue the ads, they've done their job. Since I'm not affiliated with Sony I obviously can't say exactly what they were going for. Maybe they were hoping people would perceive it as racist, but that's kind of doubtful since they might be looking at lawsuits for that type of thing. I don't know. But I do know that I don't find anything racist about it plain and simple. Oh, and the white IS better than the black... I have a nice white japanese psp and it's sweet! :p

ilovemyguitar · Post by **ilovemyguitar** » Sat Dec 16, 2006 5:28 am

Benevolent_Ghaleon wrote:She was still put into the position of "okay. now the white model is going to grab your face and stare downward toward you." and she went along with it.

Of course she went along with it. In any entertainment medium, the talent is pretty much the lowest man on the totem pole when it comes to making decisions. She'd be fired the second she popped up and said she didn't agree with the direction of the shoot. And I'm sure that being fired from a shoot wouldn't look very good to her agency, so that could have some serious consequences to her career in general.

And besides, being in an advertisement for a huge company like Sony would be something that any model would be proud of, regardless of their political reaction to the artistic direction of the shoot. Hell, the controvertial nature of this ad would probably make the job even more coveted, because it'll get that much more attention.

Benevolent_Ghaleon · Post by **Benevolent_Ghaleon** » Mon Dec 18, 2006 11:33 pm

ilovemyguitar wrote:
Benevolent_Ghaleon wrote:She was still put into the position of "okay. now the white model is going to grab your face and stare downward toward you." and she went along with it.
Of course she went along with it. In any entertainment medium, the talent is pretty much the lowest man on the totem pole when it comes to making decisions. She'd be fired the second she popped up and said she didn't agree with the direction of the shoot. And I'm sure that being fired from a shoot wouldn't look very good to her agency, so that could have some serious consequences to her career in general.

And besides, being in an advertisement for a huge company like Sony would be something that any model would be proud of, regardless of their political reaction to the artistic direction of the shoot. Hell, the controvertial nature of this ad would probably make the job even more coveted, because it'll get that much more attention.

That's like saying if someone greatly popular were to crap on your chest then it'd be fine and acceptable.

I do agree about the controversy. I assume the whole idea was to get the ad all over the internet and get everybody talking about it.

ilovemyguitar · Post by **ilovemyguitar** » Tue Dec 19, 2006 1:46 am

Benevolent_Ghaleon wrote:That's like saying if someone greatly popular were to crap on your chest then it'd be fine and acceptable.

Dude, no it's not. There are varying degrees of offensiveness. This ad is not vulgar.

Benevolent_Ghaleon · Post by **Benevolent_Ghaleon** » Tue Dec 19, 2006 3:21 pm

ilovemyguitar wrote:
Benevolent_Ghaleon wrote:That's like saying if someone greatly popular were to crap on your chest then it'd be fine and acceptable.
Dude, no it's not. There are varying degrees of offensiveness. This ad is not vulgar.

The varying degrees fall under the label of opinionated matters. It depends on the person. We don't have a way to know how offensive she found it. The fact that she did it doesn't exactly prove that she found it inoffensive either.

Lunar Threads

Shut up Sony...

Shut up Sony...

Who is online