ShiftyGeezer Comments

Page 1 of 25

  • Apple iPad Air 2 review

  • ShiftyGeezer 25/10/2014

    @Blammo72 : To compare functionality. Appole are positioning the new Air 2 as a productivity tool, right? Well, how does it compare for video editing or audio mastering versus another option? Is it as fast? No. But then it's cheaper too. So potential customers can weigh up the pros and cons. Comparing iPad Air 2 to Surface Pro makes as much sense as comparing it to iPad 2. It's to give different frames of reference to understand the device versus the rest of the marketplace and options. Reply 0
  • ShiftyGeezer 25/10/2014

    @Blammo72 : That's because they are comparing the Air 2 to the a relative Android tablet and the pro-performance of an Intel tablet to understand where it fits in.

    But whatever - it only speaks for the Air :-D
    Meaning...? It's a set of benchmarks to show how the different platforms perform relative to each other. It's not really supposed to speak for anything other than as a comparison to be interpreted. There are numerous conclusions to be drawn. For example, Air2 is much faster than iPad Air in same workloads. It's not as fast as the SP2 in CPU workloads although graphics are fast. It's faster than the nVidia shield (but at twice the price). It speaks up for Air2's performance, but possibly speaks down regards value.
    Reply +1
  • ShiftyGeezer 25/10/2014

    @secombe : The productivity situation with tablets is certainly odd. If it were me, I'd add HDMI in for use as a preview monitor for digital (video) camera, and full support for RAW formats. Heck, if Sony want to be awkward about it they could at least provide support for Sony cameras in Sony devices. But despite the immediacy of tablets as a computing platform on a shoot, they are of limited use. Reply 0
  • ShiftyGeezer 25/10/2014

    @Blammo72 :
    So that means Nexus or Galaxy Tabs aren't even direct competiton for the Air! Wow...
    The Shield tablet is a Tegra 4 (Maxwell K1 architecture) chip, comparable to A8X as a very high performance part. What's the point in comparing to some small, older chipset? And I'm sure if DF has access to a Nexus 9, they'd make that comparison. Which they did in another article, and which I'm sure they'll do as a direct comparison with benchmarks when they get hold of one.

    "I went for the shield"
    My deepest condolences!!!
    The Shield Tablet is a high performance tablet with pressure sensitive stylus and a good price and competitive price versus similar (Galaxy Note). It's hardly a poor purchase - I've been tempted myself.
    Reply -1
  • ShiftyGeezer 25/10/2014

    I'm after better functionality in tablet. For me, my Note 10.1 (original) is all the tablet power I need, but I'd upgrade for a higher res OLED pen-based tablet. The software needs to increase in quality and complexity before a faster tablet is justified. eg. PhotoShop and Sketchbook on tablet are distance cousins of PC applications. If they were expanded with more PC like functionality, there'd be an interest in faster machines. Likewise, video editing (on Android anyhow) is so primitive there's little need for performance. Or even using the editing software - leave the video editing to the PC. Reply +2
  • Spec Analysis: iPad Air 2 vs Google Nexus 9

  • ShiftyGeezer 24/10/2014

    @sifujames : They still have the N7 though. The new 1080p version is much better than the original you have, which was awesome enough for its time!

    I'm not keen on the 4:3 aspect of the N9 - as you say, inferior for media consumption.
    Reply +1
  • ShiftyGeezer 24/10/2014

    @MDL199 : I've an iPad Mini and a Nexus 7 2013, and the iPad Mini's standby time is quite frankly insane. I don't use the thing (only used for development) but drainage is so slight it'll last weeks between charges. The N7 loses far more, a few percent per day. But of course if you're *using* the tablets, a day per charge minimum is what you want and what both deliver. Reply 0
  • ShiftyGeezer 23/10/2014

    @AGBear : going to the internet and back again doesn't qualify as 'copying any file easily'. Android - bluetooth a file over, or plug in to any USB port and use the OS file interface to copy the files. iOS - use the internet to fileshare, or any USB port and install a whole application (requiring an internet connection).

    Edit: in case you think I'm excluding the internet just to be obtuse, I use a tablet for work and frequent places where I don't have access to the internet, but sharing files is still wanted.
    Reply +1
  • ShiftyGeezer 23/10/2014

    @BabyBabyBabyOh : I forgot the original N7 was T3, but it wasn't a particularly competitive architecture so no-one else adopted it. K1 is very well positioned at the moment with nVidia's invest in Maxwell meaning they're actually on the front foot in a big way. And instead of being consigned to nVidia own-brand products, it's now in the Google flagship tablet.

    Or putting it another way, no matter how fast K1 is, if it's only available in Shield devices, it'll be niche.
    Reply +1
  • ShiftyGeezer 23/10/2014

    Nexus 9 is an important coup for nVidia. Their mobile architectures have always been extremely niche and pretty much redundant as a developer target in a landscape dominated by SnapDragon and Exynos and the like. Google's Nexus tablets tend to sell well so this should be a huge boost to Tegra legitimacy, both for developers and other device manufacturers. The real crux will probably be battery life. Reply +2
  • Spec Analysis: Alienware Alpha

  • ShiftyGeezer 23/10/2014

    @StooMonster : High end components that run cool cost a lot more. Super-slim drives cost more. One can apply the engineering adage - "Smaller, Faster, Cheaper - pick two". And as proof, if these boxes could be made smaller at the same price, they would be because it'd save on storage and distribution costs. That's why consoles get shrinks when they can. If AlienWare could make a half-laptop sized gaming PC (no KB or screen) for the same price, they'd really turn heads.

    It'd take someone like ASUS to produce a custom laptop-like console to get a realistic price, but the margins (they think) that would command would probably be pretty steep!
    Reply +1
  • ShiftyGeezer 23/10/2014

    @DwarfyP : Who was saying PC is only hardcore? You've missed 'core gamers' - own one platform and play some games, often major titles like COD. And within those, you have very part-time gamers (more casual) and some who play more regularly (more hobbyist). Reply 0
  • ShiftyGeezer 22/10/2014

    @StooMonster :
    Why are these boxes so voluminous?
    Price. What did your laptop cost? I'm guessing well in excess of 1000.
    Reply 0
  • ShiftyGeezer 22/10/2014

    @lone_wolf_uk : No, but if you were a casual gamer, you probably wouldn't think to buy a PC to game on. You'd either play Bejewelled on your phone or tablet, or some Facebook game on your home PC (using one definition of casual), or you'd switch on the box under the TV and fire up some easy-to-play game. Which is where this box should be presented as a console, not a PC, because I'm sure 'PC' will instantly discourage a load of potential customers (although the price tag probably has that covered!).

    This box is really for hobbyist PC gamers wanting a small PC in the living room for a more casual experience to that of sitting at the gaming desk - a second machine.
    Reply +4
  • ShiftyGeezer 22/10/2014

    @davidpower : 'casual' is a very broad term in gaming. Alienware's use of it here is clearly the occasional gamer, rather than the hobbyist gamer, and these people (eg. FIFA and COD part-timers) would presumably think 'console' when it comes to their gaming forays.

    TBH the whole 'casual' and 'core' nomenclature lacks the necessary granularity and should be replaced with more descriptive terms.
    Reply +6
  • ShiftyGeezer 22/10/2014

    "Casual gamer" and "PC" don't really mix. Casual games == plug-in-and-go console or tablet. Edit: I missed the bespoke UI, although I have my doubts. but it's still not a machine the casuals would go for. Alienware would need to lose the PC reference and just call it a console (Steam Box?) IMO. Reply -29
  • Night at the Museum director tapped to helm Minecraft movie

  • ShiftyGeezer 17/10/2014

    Minecraft movie?...

    ... :eek:


    ...... :confused:


    .... How's about a Blek movie? Or Threes? Both have about as much story basis.:-P
    Reply +1
  • Anita Sarkeesian cancels university speech following school shooting threat

  • ShiftyGeezer 15/10/2014

    "Feminists have ruined my life..."
    I'm very curious how.
    Reply +37
  • DriveClub dev "had confidence" servers would work

  • ShiftyGeezer 13/10/2014

    @Patbateman : The download servers shouldn't be the game servers. The game servers should be cloud based these days and should scale to whatever demands are made. The issue must be one with the software and how it handles player connections, I suppose. Reply +19
  • Sony "temporarily holding back" DriveClub's free PlayStation Plus edition

  • ShiftyGeezer 09/10/2014

    ...the entire development team were working non-stop to try and solve the situation.
    Curious how the artists and sound engineers will be helping. Making coffee, perhaps? ;)
    Reply +17
  • Ex-PlayStation Home devs want to build a new virtual world for PS4

  • ShiftyGeezer 07/10/2014

    @WhiteUmbrella : I've said I can't provide a source because it comes from personal contact with a Home content developer friend of mine. But I also backed it up with the most mind-numbingly obvious proof - if Home made money, Sony wouldn't stop it! That would be moronic behaviour. You're suggesting Sony were raking in the dough off overpriced items, but are ending it for no good reason, ending that revenue source, and not even supplying a replacement. How does that argument hang together??

    And I point to your misunderstand of things like 'all games needing servers' as evidence that you don't really understand what's going on as well as others of us, and you certainly underestimate the costs.

    Given two scenarios : 1) Sony is making lots of money but is ending Home anyway and not providing a replacement, forcing the people who used to work on Home to find another job and they're making an independent clone.

    2) Home made content providers money but the cut to Sony wasn't sufficient to significantly overcome high operational costs, so are ending Home and not creating an equally non-profitable PS4 version, forcing the people who used to work on Home to find another job and they're making an independent clone.

    ...you're honestly believing scenario 1 is the more plausible?? Agree to disagree all you want, that's your prerogative, but don't claim some intellectual high ground.
    Reply 0
  • ShiftyGeezer 07/10/2014

    @WhiteUmbrella : Your link about 'commercial success' is from content developers. As some of us have repeated, Home was good for content creators but not Sony.

    If Sony want to move PS3 Home users to PS4, why are they not creating a PS4 version of Home? Surely the logical move would be to offer Home users an upgrade path where they can experience Home in even better quality on PS4, including all the stuff they own.

    And no, most games don't require servers. TLoU uses peer to peer networks. Games that do require servers tend to charge a subscription fee, or they close down, like MAG did. There are some exceptions where ongoing monetisation covers the bills, but the ongoing costs have to be paid for somehow.

    When you buy a 3 costume in Home, it costs the company that designed that a few hours to make. Once made, they have no running costs, so every sale above the production cost is profit. Now Sony took 30% of all transactions which is where they made their money. However, every time someone used an item, Sony had to pay for server power and bandwidth to supply that content. When you went into someone's apartment and it loaded up their furniture, Sony had to pay money to send that furniture info to your PS3. The content creators didn't have to pay a penny.

    Even moreso, the public spaces like Sodium. Every time people played Sodium, it cost Sony to run the game, but the content creators incurred no costs AFAIK.

    Given the number of users of Home and how much they spent on average, the takings Sony got from the content sales basically only covered their running costs. Sony did not make a profit, certainly not a justifiable one. This is why they closed Home and did not create a sequel for PS4. This is why the head of Home development found himself without a job and needing to make a living and he went on Kickstarter to start an independent Home-alike.

    If Sony made (enough) money from Home, they'd have continued it, plain and simple.
    Reply 0
  • ShiftyGeezer 06/10/2014

    @WhiteUmbrella : You're absolutely right that it's unfair, but Sony's no worse than anyone else. MS have also switched off servers in the past and ended access to paid for content, as has any collapsed MMO and some older titles. There probably is a consumer case for warranty against loss of virtual items - that's a legal issue and one applicable to everyone.

    As far as I am aware, PSHOME being unprofitable is a myth created by Sony Defence League. Please post a link to an official statement from Sony regarding the profitability of Pshome
    I can't because it doesn't come from a public post, but discussions with a Home content developer. The cost of operating the servers basically consumed Sony's takings from content sales, and they couldn't monetise it effectively. However, there's a pretty simple litmus test - if Home made Sony money, why are they closing it and not continuing it or making an official PS4 version?

    I completely support your anger at the loss of your content. I completely agree that something should be done about it. It's an industry wide thing though, and Sony are no worse than anyone else. There's no-one nice who would have handled it differently. MS isn't going to treat you any differently. If they ran a Home-like thing and couldn't make money, they'd close it too.
    Reply 0
  • ShiftyGeezer 06/10/2014

    @WhiteUmbrella : That's cynical and wrong. Home was based on some ancient legacy tech. For a future concept to be as flexible as modern tech allows, it'd need to abandon the old content. Otherwise a system that was compatible and allowed your content to cross over would be limited in what it could do. For example, characters and moves in Home have a very rigid set of rules defining them which limited what content developers could implement. Some hacked these to fake stuff, but the underlying systems are intrinsically limited to basic motions and designs. A whole new system could be an order of magnitude more flexible, but require a ground-level change in system architecture to implement.

    As for "Goodbye Sony, hello MS," if you want a virtual world I don't think MS provides anything nor has plans to. You'd be better off going a PC route, or buying into this, or look for entertainment in other formats. It'd be very wrong to base your actions on a belief that Sony on the sly is killing Home user's content so they can resell it in another form though. Sony didn't make money off of Home, hence their closing it and not providing a replacement. Devs who worked on Home and saw the interest in the platform are looking to make their own version. the only curiosity is why PS4 and not cross-platform? I'd guess their ties with Sony allowed them to benefit from solid backing, plus intimate knowledge of the back-end systems and how to tie in with them. I'd expect success to lead to expansion to other platforms as what intended for Home originally.

    If Sony are guilty of anything, it's bad business, failing to make enough off Home to justify its ongoing progress and transition to next-gen. They aren't fleecing you.
    Reply 0
  • ShiftyGeezer 06/10/2014

    I can see why gamers would have this response, but there was a notable audience for Home even if those users didn't frequent gaming websites. There's also potential to make something good. Home was just really badly implemented and not thought through. One failed attempt doesn't mean the idea itself can't have merit. A suitably gamified version could both be fun in its own right and provide that social element that other people liked (that I never understood). Reply +2
  • Touch the future: meet the games embracing the material world

  • ShiftyGeezer 04/10/2014

    That 'sandpit' is very clever. I very nearly overlooked it, but the video piqued my curiosity. Reply +2
  • Steam Curators must now disclose paid-for recommendations

  • ShiftyGeezer 03/10/2014

    @bad09 : That then changes the store though. At the moment, it's an open platform than anyone can try their luck with. It allows the indiest of indie devs to reach an audience without needing lots of money and paperwork to get onto a curated platform like the consoles.

    If Valve becomes more exclusive, that'll have good points and bad points - let's crap for users, less opportunities for developers and less choice for users. Plus what constitutes junk? Would Valve have allowed a Goat Simulator if they were screening content?

    One man's trash is another man's treasure. Wanting more quality control means putting someone with their own tastes in charge of what does and doesn't make it. Alternatively, you let anyone publish and let the reviewing process decide what does and doesn't get seen. Steam users should find a curator who's opinion they trust, who shares their tastes, to find the quality titles that user would like. That way different people can be served different content over the same platform.

    I'm not seeing a problem, other than with thousands of curators, it's even harder to find a trustable review source than a good game!
    Reply +2
  • ShiftyGeezer 03/10/2014

    @bad09 : that's the problem with contemporary society though. There's sooooo much stuff, finding the good stuff is hard. That's why there are blogs and reviews sites and stuff. Curator programme is simple a localised set of reviews.

    However, you said no-one can find anything unless it's in the top ten or recently released. I guess what you mean is a game goes unnoticed unless it's on that top page or someone explicitly searches for it. If you actively go looking, I think Steam's as good as any. Better even thanks to tags. PSN doesn't have a 'search for cooperative games' AFAIK.

    I don't think there's any more Vavle can do. The alternative is to exclude people from releasing and be more selective, giving a larger share to those on Steam and yet excluding people who may deserve to be one there (there are blogs and such about the difficulty in getting onto Steam and how it's a popularity contest). Which again is the way things are. A great musician/artist/film-maker will go unnoticed as people prefer to follow whatever's popular, requiring often enough a lot of marketing dollars. Can't really blame Valve for that. LBP had the same problem with level exposure, for example. I created a 4 minute musical film in LBP2 that was completely overlooked until a curator with a following highlighted it. How many games deserve attention from EG but never get a mention?

    It's just a universal problem with how much creativity there is the world and how much all exposure has collapsed into one seething mass of everythingness. In days of yore, the world was partitioned into manageable chunks. Now you have your local people, national people, and international people to pay attention and find the content that matters to you. Financial success in creative endeavours relies more on managing Facebook and Twitter and blog posts that just creating the best possible work.
    Reply +1
  • ShiftyGeezer 03/10/2014

    @bad09 : Okay, but if they're filterable and searchable, is it really a problem? Search for the game type you want, read owner reviews, make your choices. Reply 0
  • ShiftyGeezer 03/10/2014

    @bad09 : What's wrong with the search criteria and tags? I've only used Steam a little. Searching for coop games, it provided a list, for example. Seems okay. Reply +3
  • ShiftyGeezer 03/10/2014

    @dirtysteve :
    It looks that way. I wasn't interested to begin with, but now it just looks like pointless clutter.
    That's kinda the internet now. Too much everything. Too much crap. A trillion blogs and vlogs and websites and YouTube content makers etc. Everything has basically been reduced to a high-school popularity contest.
    Reply +11
  • Bethesda warns: you should have 4GB of VRAM to play The Evil Within PC

  • ShiftyGeezer 03/10/2014

    i7 as a minimum spec?! That's ridiculous. Will be interesting to see what real-world results on different systems are. DF could really get their teeth into this one! XB1 and PS4 don't come close to that minimum CPU spec. Reply +2
  • ShiftyGeezer 26/09/2014

    @shruteshkumar :
    Yep, thats how its done; and I get your point that VRAM is needed for content; however we have to take into consideration the fact that the more content that's added to the scene, more models, textures, the more the console CPU/GPUs will struggle.
    Not necessarily. Depends on what you're doing. If a town only ever has 12 people in view at a time, but you want every one of 10,000 people in the town to be unique, you'd need storage for their model data but the processing requirements will be no more demanding than using just 12 unique characters repeated over and over.

    If you take a look at Nvidia's hardware presentations and at Microsoft's Direct X 12 demos / conferences; both talk about faster data exchange between RAM and VRAM rather than just brute forcing the issue by adding more and more VRAM to the GPU lines.
    Yep, due to things like tiled resources. Working smarter, not harder. But in that respect, the consoles have a significant advantage, PS4 especially. On PC there's this narrow pipe between VRAM and RAM. On consoles, you can swap between VRAM and 'RAM' at full BW (there being no such distinction in PS4. So if you have an engine that needs access to 4GBs of data for the GPU at 100 GB/s, you get that on PS4, but on a 200 GB/s VRAM with 2GBs, you'd hit the PCI bottleneck and that'd really hamper your engine.

    PC has a legacy memory topology that isn't doing it any favours, and consoles, despite being largely PCs by design, do at least benefit from a less restricted memory structure (well, PS4. XB1's ESRAM poses its own restrictions).
    Reply +3
  • ShiftyGeezer 26/09/2014

    @Suarez07 : Streamed resources is real and used in games. Trials Fusion streams all content, on user created levels, at full 60 fps, for example.

    PRT/TR is going to grow in importance and impact. It's better than brute-forced rendering in pretty much every way, requiring lower bandwidth, less RAM, and offering more content. It's an intelligent technique enabled by modern hardware that developers just need to adapt to, and adapt they will.
    Reply +1
  • ShiftyGeezer 26/09/2014

    @shruteshkumar :
    This leads to a much higher memory bandwidth for the 780ti; 336 GBPS vs 176 GBPS for the PS4; so technically the 780ti has memory that is twice as fast, which means that though it alone cant 'hold' the same textures that the PS4's 5 GB of available GDDR5 can; instead it certainly can keep on swapping out the unneeded textures with needed ones as and when required.
    Swap from where? Main RAM, which means over PCI express bus at 16 GB/s (v3).

    The VRAM bandwidth is great for working with, but no compensation for lack of capacity when needed.

    The VRAM requirements will increase, but mostly for games to run at 4K and beyond; 1080p does not really need more VRAM, if the devs are not lazy, that is.
    VRAM is needed for content. Resources don't need to go higher resolution for 1080p, but if you want more variety rather than the same cloned objects, you'll need for data, and more RAM. The real solution is 'tiled resources' and far greater efficiency in VRAM use, but you're basically wrong on pretty much all points. ;)
    Reply +1
  • Jason Rohrer's next game requires you to play for real money

  • ShiftyGeezer 30/09/2014

    I hate mobile phone calls. They are extremely unclear and subject to break ups. Not even close to a decent landline. For me, mobiles are about texting, although some cordless landline sets can suffer similar signal issues.

    I guess these comments show what people think of the game (that sounds a lot like gambling to me). ;)
    Reply -1
  • PlayStation Home is shutting down next year

  • ShiftyGeezer 26/09/2014

    @ziggy_played_guitar : According to my insider, it was profitable for content creators by not Sony as running costs were too high. Basically they had trouble monetising it. Reply +7
  • ShiftyGeezer 26/09/2014

    Sony had no idea what to do with it. However, it had a following and content creators who made a living from it. I know one of them, and this is going to be a major blow. I also heard that the dev team for Home had it working on PC and mobile, but Sony weren't interested. Reply +5
  • Nvidia GeForce GTX 970 review

  • ShiftyGeezer 24/09/2014

    @Dantonir : Just saw that. Typo. It's very easy to mix up MB and GB and KB, especially when KB is so rarely used these days. Reply +7
  • iPhone 6 sold 10 million units in three days

  • ShiftyGeezer 23/09/2014

    @bobomb : Yep. In photography, beyond a certain limit, resolution doesn't provide much. Lens quality (resolving power - no point having millions of pixels if the lens is going to blur the image across them), colour depth and accuracy, ISO, autofocus accuracy and speed, low light performance, etc. are all far more important features of a good camera.

    And of note, a 6x4" glossy print at 300 lpi (dpi) requires an 1800x1200, or about 2 megapixels. Higher resolutions are only good for cropping and downsampling to help reduce noise.
    Reply +1
  • ShiftyGeezer 23/09/2014

    For those saying they don't understand the point of this mobile phone sales piece in a gaming website, the real purpose is to highlight the impact the mobile space is having on how developers think. Not that I think that needs highlighting, because we're all well aware of it. Like, a billion mobile devices out there, it is a little bit larger market for selling games than the consoles and PCs (if you count PCs used for gaming).

    The real emphasis of the article is that a dev targeting PS4 would have to wait 9 months to get an install base of 10 million users to try to sell to, whereas they'd wait 3 days to get the same massive audience on iPhone. Which is true, but also moot because there's already hundreds of millions of iPhones out there with compatibility for any game.

    Um, so...um...it's not a completely irrelevant article for gaming. Just a bit redundant ("Breaking news : there are loads more phones for gaming on than consoles, and now there's even more!").
    Reply +2
  • Gaming on the Big Screen: Optoma GT1080 projector review

  • ShiftyGeezer 21/09/2014

    @richbambam : Nope. You don't get the same crystal sharpness as a smaller screen, but you get huge FOV, and this is what is what makes the big screen worth it. So we played with a wall sized (about 150" diagonal) 720p projection from about 6 feet away, and it was still fabulous. Obviously higher resolutions are better, but FOV counts for a lot for the big-screen experience. You get the same in VR headsets. These run typically 30 degree FOV screen resolutions (1080p) stretched to a 90 degree FOV. The image quality isn't as high (not 'retina') but it's still worth the drop in quality to gain the FOV immersion.

    On a 50" TV, you'd have to sit really close to get the same experience (wide FOV) and you'd have the same reduced image quality but with an uncomfortable closeness in the screen, plus an inability to gather several folk around it.
    Reply +1
  • ShiftyGeezer 21/09/2014

    I bought a short throw BenQ 720p projector a while back for a project. Used it in a living room to play various games, and it made them way better! Things like beat-'em-ups (Sacred Citadel) and FIFA were made easier to follow as everyone was playing on their own footage of screen, while first-person (GT) was more involving. I've been an advocate of projectors for gaming since then, although with the progress towards VR, projectors may never really break out of being a niche. The minimum price is just way too high. Reply +10
  • Elite: Dangerous beta 2 launches this month

  • ShiftyGeezer 19/09/2014

    In addition to this second beta, Frontier commemorating the 30th anniversary of the original BBC Micro Elite by offering free copies of the 1984 game.
    Kinda shot themselves in the foot with that one. If they're going to give the game away for free eventually, why buy it now? I'll just wait 30 years and get Elite: Dangerous as a freebie...
    Reply +5
  • Ridiculous AirVR headset straps a mobile device to your face

  • ShiftyGeezer 18/09/2014

    "AirVR is the most affordable way to experience the world of Virtual Reality for yourself," the developer stated on its Kickstarter page.
    So it comes complete with the iPad Mini or iPhone 6 for that $49 CAD?...
    Reply +1
  • Sony quadruples forecast loss for financial year

  • ShiftyGeezer 17/09/2014

    @ipar : Grassyknoll covered that, but are you going to pretend Japan doesn't exist as well?

    Yes it really looks like 5:1 sales gap.lol
    You have reading comprehension issues. I said 5:1 in some places. In MS's best markets, it's being outsold something like 1.5:1. In other markets its more like 3:1. Japan, it's 10:1 at launch.

    So how is MS's bottomless chest of cash making them unbeatable in the console space exactly? It's not. Never has done. You can't just buy success in any business. You have to invest, build up a brand, turn people around, and everything else. Having limitless cash does not mean an instant win for any company.
    Reply +3
  • ShiftyGeezer 17/09/2014

    @ipar : PS3 wasn't better than XB360 as evidenced by the games. They were mostly comparable, often with 360 having a little edge over PS3 in multiplats.

    Also, I never said hardware wins over great software, but the software of the two machines is pretty much the same. MS's money isn't helping there, unless they buy a massive studio and own all the software.

    Hence your original remark is patently false. MS's money does not mean they win the console war. It didn't work for PS2 (MS lost 5 billion getting XBox to have a small presence), it didn't really demolish Sony with PS3 because they were equals, despite MS making loads of cash and Sony constantly losing money year on year, and it isn't helping them now with PS4 outselling XB1 by a huge ratio worldwide (up to 5:1 in some places).
    Reply -2
  • ShiftyGeezer 17/09/2014

    @ipar :The console war is an independent battle, like the Eastern Front as opposed to the Western and Southern Fronts. Sony can win the console battle, but lose the corporate war. MS have little to compete with in the console space at the moment, and unless they buy...EA, all that money isn't really going to help them. Whatever quality exclusives MS can get, Sony can match, and exclusives only represent about 10% of games sold to consoles. MS really should have spent their money on awesome hardware if they wanted to win the console gamers over, but it's too late now. Reply +2
  • ShiftyGeezer 17/09/2014

    @cashsun : although it seems to have done quite well this time with what little I've seen of reviews. Xperia Z3 is well received, while iPhone 6 is disappointing where reviewers have compared it to the Z3, such as being waterproof. So in this case, iPhone 6 comes off less shiny, and some people waiting on the the 6 may think, "maybe that Z3 is worth a look?"

    The carrier issue must be bad for Sony in the US. Seems like a really stupid, uncompetitive market over there for mobile. But for the rest of the world, Sony should get back to innovating. They used to be good at that, introducing new tech no-one else had. For me, I bought a Samsung S3 Mini as a phone because it was cheap (on special on Amazon, original launch price was stupid) and good quality I trusted, + OLED screen, and a Galaxy Note 10.1 tablet for the stylus. So Samsung was offering me the right products and value. Sony's offering neither. Maybe they should focus on photography in a big way in their cameras? Their optical division is pretty cutting edge. Sony's FW is always a bit crazy and broke though!
    Reply 0
  • ShiftyGeezer 17/09/2014

    @UncleLou : Different companies get different results. Samsung is in part as big as it is in the mobile space because it offers an insane range of devices, from cheap as chips to premium. Apple has stuck with one or two models, in contrast. If there's no profits to be had on low end hardware because competition has squeezed margins, there's some sense to targeting just the high end. The S4 sold something like 40 million. However, I do worry that the high end is pretty saturated. AFAIK everyone's seeing decreasing sales of their expensive handsets, because the annual updates don't justify the crazy prices and people are now content with their 1 or 2 year old, still awesome phone.

    Overall I'd say the mobile space is a difficult one for Sony to navigate. Sony quality at a midrange price could be good, but I don't think Sony are that great at competing on price. They got to be as big as they are now by being more expensive and higher quality than the competition, but that's not so readily done these days.
    Reply +1