herod said:
It's not really bias though, is it? Sony over-promised and under-delivered, and made a lot of optimistic infectiously enthusiastic journalists look stupid along the way. If you release target renders and then take 3.5 years to fulfil them then it can't really come as a huge shock, surely?
Sony did make some rather grand promises, but they did end up cashing in on most of them, regardless of how long it took at least they did it. Also, "target renders" were close to met with even the first Motorstorm which didn't come out "3.5 years" later. It's interesting how people have taken this approach to the fact that Killzone delivered. "Yeah right, we'll never see a game like it this gen lol" to "yeah, well took ya long enough sheesh".
The only segment where Sony has "under delivered" to this day is the online still needs some fleshing out, and that's because I think Sony needs to crack the whip harder on the devs for that one. For example, how bleeding hard is it to put in a fucking party system? Especially when a day 1 title had it implemented... Seriously, they need to crack down on these devs with certain features like that.
If you're talking about on day 1 under delivery, of course, but I don't think anyone expected them to fully deliver everything the first day it hit the shelves as far as the games go. Everyone knows it takes development time on games.
There is a distinct bias though, it's not hard to see. This all stems from the acceptable bias "my friends own x console so I wanna play with them" to the non-acceptable lower than should've attention brought to the RRoD issue. MS should've taken drastically more heat for that, especially considering they had to know the hardware was drastically flawed but they rushed it out the door at consumers grief just to "have a shot" this gen (not knowing Sony was shooting themselves in the foot). Even to this day you still see too many stories of people's machines dying on them, or hearing a friend complain again. Everyone has their "bias", I have mine and wear it on my sleeve, and that's normal which nearly everyone I know is like. You like what you like. But "journalists" are supposed to be impartial.
This is when the free ride Sony was getting started to end but no one can deny that pre-price announcement that everyone just assumed that the PS3 was going to be the new PS2 and "dreamcast" the 360 and run circles all around that silly Gamecube with a weird controller.
Of course pre-shooting themselves in the foot thought that, you're talking about coming off of the most successful console of all time, which surpassed the 2nd most successful that your company made just before it. My point overall is that any bias should be removed from journalism. Clear-hard facts is fine, and that's what should be conveyed to the reader/consumer, there is absolutely no need for bias though. I don't even think it belongs in other publication matters as well, like Automotive for example, even the blokes from my favorite TV show are guilty of it at many times on Top Gear.
