Microsoft deserves to fail.

  • 55 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Edited by jev221927 (3 posts) -

I'd rather just have Sony,Nintendo,and Valve competing in the gaming industry.

Microsoft has THE MOST anti-consumer business policies/practices nowadays compared to its competitors.

Really pisses me off that a lot of gamers can't see through Microsoft's BS..

@Microsoft/Xbox fanboys. You think Microsoft is a better company than the other 3? Explain.
Otherwise, just keep paying more for less.

#2 Edited by Renegade311 (334 posts) -

Waaaah!!

#3 Posted by KratosYOLOSwag (306 posts) -

Dont worry. The good guys always win. This gen Sony will be back on the throne.

#4 Posted by lundy86_4 (42661 posts) -

Prove that they have "THE MOST" anti-consumer practices.

#5 Posted by I_can_haz (6481 posts) -

Don't worry Sony is back OP. The King has returned to his rightful throne.

#6 Posted by k2theswiss (16598 posts) -

lol. ya Sure... The ONLY company giving sony competition you want them to drop out...

Nintendo can't do shit right with household console, valve isn't getting in the console business they are trying to expand pc gaming.

I really wounder where psn would be right now if MS didn't come along

#7 Posted by magicalclick (22237 posts) -

Cry more, cry..., whaaa.

#8 Posted by jev221927 (3 posts) -

@lundy86_4: Do I really need to? You know how to use google. You can find Microsoft's crap all over the internet.
I'm not absolving Sony,Nintendo,or Valve of any of their sins. I'm only saying that Microsoft is the biggest a-hole out of all of them.

#9 Edited by lundy86_4 (42661 posts) -

@jev221927 said:

@lundy86_4:

Do I really need to? You know how to use google. You can find Microsoft's crap all over the internet.

I'm not absolving Sony,Nintendo,or Valve of any of their sins. I'm only saying that Microsoft is the biggest a-hole out of all of them.

You made the claim, so burden of proof is on you. In other words, "yes."

#10 Posted by heretrix (37253 posts) -

MS and Sony do the same shit. If something is successful they will emulate it in some form or fashion. It's a shame people can't see that.

Micro transactions, Subscription based online, timed exclusivity or just outright exclusivity.

It doesn't matter who started it they both are doing it. What's worse? Doing something and finding out people hate it or watching someone do something, see that people hate it, but copy it anyway because it makes money?

People need to get off their idiotic high horses and understand this is business and eventually businesses want to make money, even if they feed you some bullshit about how much they love you.

#11 Posted by mems_1224 (45785 posts) -

Sony is the same way.

#12 Edited by lundy86_4 (42661 posts) -

@heretrix said:

People need to get off their idiotic high horses and understand this is business and eventually businesses want to make money, even if they feed you some bullshit about how much they love you.

Exactly.

This is where competition is key... It keeps them in check. However, they still pull douchey moves... Sony using online passes was a big one for last-gen... Same as MS charging for online play (as well as many other feature).

#13 Posted by treedoor (7478 posts) -

@heretrix said:

MS and Sony do the same shit. If something is successful they will emulate it in some form or fashion. It's a shame people can't see that.

Micro transactions, Subscription based online, timed exclusivity or just outright exclusivity.

It doesn't matter who started it they both are doing it. What's worse? Doing something and finding out people hate it or watching someone do something, see that people hate it, but copy it anyway because it makes money?

People need to get off their idiotic high horses and understand this is business and eventually businesses want to make money, even if they feed you some bullshit about how much they love you.

I always look on in disgust when fanboys go about hating one company for doing "bad" things while singing praises for their own company even though they're doing the same thing.

Like, look at charging for online. You've got the Sony fanboys claiming that Sony only did it because Microsoft showed them they could, and therefore Sony isn't the bad one here. It's Microsoft for forcing Sony to go that direction for profit...

That's just one of many examples

What's even sadder is that I think many of the fanboys here on System Wars are actually older than 12. Some are actually adults, and still act this way, so it's hard to imagine they'll ever be cured of fanboyism,

#14 Posted by TheRealBigRich (697 posts) -

So basically if there were 4 murders only the person that killed the most deserves the death penalty? listen in the end all companies just want one thing please don't act like they truly care how they get there. Other than them wanting(not doing it) drm policy can you just tell use what else they did that was so anti consumer. Unless you believe just them thinking about doing it and not actually going through with DRM should be a death sentence on its on. Plus add all that to the fact that Xbox being around actually helped Sony be what they are know whether you like to believe it or not

#15 Posted by megaspiderweb09 (3674 posts) -

While i share your sentiment, you did not need a an alt account to state the obvious

#16 Edited by jev221927 (3 posts) -

It seems that some of you have jumped to the conclusion that I'm a Sony fanboy just because I want MS to fail.

I am NOT promoting any of the other companies.

I am simply expressing my great displeasure over what Microsoft has been doing as of late.

#17 Edited by Stringerboy (6891 posts) -

It seems that some of you have jumped to the conclusion that I'm a Sony fanboy just because I want MS to fail.

I am NOT promoting any of the other companies.

I am simply expressing my great displeasure over what Microsoft has been doing as of late.

Nice sig.

#18 Edited by heretrix (37253 posts) -

@jev221927 said:

I am simply expressing my great displeasure over what Microsoft has been doing as of late.

And completely missing the point if you don't rake the others over the coals for doing the same thing.

I don't want anybody to fail, the more choices the healthier the industry is. I'm not to happy about the way things are going myself but it is completely idiotic to just blame MS for it. All of the platform holders are responsible for where we are right now and to say otherwise just gives the illusion that MS has more power than they actually have.

#19 Posted by farrell2k (5186 posts) -

Te Xbox brand has lost Microsoft money for a decade. I'd be surprised if this wasn't their last go at a home console. In 6 or 7 years, Xbox will be as memorable as WebTV.

#20 Posted by 6_Dead_360s (1663 posts) -

I saw through it after 5 console failures and decided to switch to pc. I might consider a PS4 depending on it's future game library.

Repent, Microsoft.

#21 Posted by slipknot0129 (5484 posts) -

The Xbox brand is here to stay whether you like it or not. Sort of like how some people say Facebook will be dead. It will remain the top dog way past after i'm dead.

#22 Posted by Opus_Rea-333 (893 posts) -

Sony might go bankrupt if they continue to lie.

#23 Edited by Mystery_Writer (7858 posts) -

I agree they should learn a lesson this gen. But I don't want them to drop out of the competition as I want them to dump X1 in 4 years and release another consumer friendly console extremely powerful and without Kinect.

#24 Posted by PS4TrumpsXbox1 (1067 posts) -

@treedoor said:

@heretrix said:

MS and Sony do the same shit. If something is successful they will emulate it in some form or fashion. It's a shame people can't see that.

Micro transactions, Subscription based online, timed exclusivity or just outright exclusivity.

It doesn't matter who started it they both are doing it. What's worse? Doing something and finding out people hate it or watching someone do something, see that people hate it, but copy it anyway because it makes money?

People need to get off their idiotic high horses and understand this is business and eventually businesses want to make money, even if they feed you some bullshit about how much they love you.

I always look on in disgust when fanboys go about hating one company for doing "bad" things while singing praises for their own company even though they're doing the same thing.

Like, look at charging for online. You've got the Sony fanboys claiming that Sony only did it because Microsoft showed them they could, and therefore Sony isn't the bad one here. It's Microsoft for forcing Sony to go that direction for profit...

That's just one of many examples

What's even sadder is that I think many of the fanboys here on System Wars are actually older than 12. Some are actually adults, and still act this way, so it's hard to imagine they'll ever be cured of fanboyism,

The huge difference there is that Sony doesn't hold its features of its console hostage with ps plus, MS does like apps and game dvr to name a few. So thats actually not a good example at all.....

#25 Posted by cainetao11 (15893 posts) -

@heretrix said:

MS and Sony do the same shit. If something is successful they will emulate it in some form or fashion. It's a shame people can't see that.

Micro transactions, Subscription based online, timed exclusivity or just outright exclusivity.

It doesn't matter who started it they both are doing it. What's worse? Doing something and finding out people hate it or watching someone do something, see that people hate it, but copy it anyway because it makes money?

People need to get off their idiotic high horses and understand this is business and eventually businesses want to make money, even if they feed you some bullshit about how much they love you.

Bravo sir. Its so stupid, believing any care an ounce about people. Its business. That's how I treat it. Im not looking for a relationship. I buy what I want from them, and make use of it.

#26 Posted by lamprey263 (22444 posts) -

MS did more for shaping last gen than Sony, if MS wasn't there the PS4 would look more like a Wii U.

#27 Posted by Joedgabe (5090 posts) -

MS did more for shaping last gen than Sony, if MS wasn't there the PS4 would look more like a Wii U.

I doubt it. But M$ did bring online gaming to consoles, made it popular among them and showed that it would work. But i wouldn't go as far as saying it'll look like the Wii U.

#28 Posted by heretrix (37253 posts) -

@treedoor said:

@heretrix said:

MS and Sony do the same shit. If something is successful they will emulate it in some form or fashion. It's a shame people can't see that.

Micro transactions, Subscription based online, timed exclusivity or just outright exclusivity.

It doesn't matter who started it they both are doing it. What's worse? Doing something and finding out people hate it or watching someone do something, see that people hate it, but copy it anyway because it makes money?

People need to get off their idiotic high horses and understand this is business and eventually businesses want to make money, even if they feed you some bullshit about how much they love you.

I always look on in disgust when fanboys go about hating one company for doing "bad" things while singing praises for their own company even though they're doing the same thing.

Like, look at charging for online. You've got the Sony fanboys claiming that Sony only did it because Microsoft showed them they could, and therefore Sony isn't the bad one here. It's Microsoft for forcing Sony to go that direction for profit...

That's just one of many examples

What's even sadder is that I think many of the fanboys here on System Wars are actually older than 12. Some are actually adults, and still act this way, so it's hard to imagine they'll ever be cured of fanboyism,

The huge difference there is that Sony doesn't hold its features of its console hostage with ps plus, MS does like apps and game dvr to name a few. So thats actually not a good example at all.....

The bottom line is you will now pay for multiplayer gaming on the PS4. It really doesn't matter what features are locked or not. They are no better than MS in that regard.

#29 Posted by seanmcloughlin (38167 posts) -

@heretrix said:

MS and Sony do the same shit. If something is successful they will emulate it in some form or fashion. It's a shame people can't see that.

Micro transactions, Subscription based online, timed exclusivity or just outright exclusivity.

It doesn't matter who started it they both are doing it. What's worse? Doing something and finding out people hate it or watching someone do something, see that people hate it, but copy it anyway because it makes money?

People need to get off their idiotic high horses and understand this is business and eventually businesses want to make money, even if they feed you some bullshit about how much they love you.

The voice of reason

At the end of the day they're both businesses trying their hardest to get every penny out of you. It all depends on which company shows it more and which are more subtle

#30 Posted by lamprey263 (22444 posts) -

@Joedgabe said:

@lamprey263 said:

MS did more for shaping last gen than Sony, if MS wasn't there the PS4 would look more like a Wii U.

I doubt it. But M$ did bring online gaming to consoles, made it popular among them and showed that it would work. But i wouldn't go as far as saying it'll look like the Wii U.

MS really pushed the graphics boundary for home consoles more than Sony would have done by themselves without the competition, this helped bridge the differences between consoles and PC and helped for greater cross platform development between consoles and PC, helped give us some really great games during the generation. They didn't just bring online gaming to consoles in a greater extent, they brought a digital marketplace for XBLA games, DLC-add ons, game updates, larger retail games as digital downloads, achievements, party chat, friends lists, apps like Netflix and Hulu. Nothing of course was very original but they brought everything together in a nice package, setting the pace that Sony would have to compete against and thus shaping how things played out through the gen. And the PS3 wouldn't have been what it was without having to compete against MS, probably wouldn't have wasted money with the Cell and Blu-ray if MS wasn't competing, they'd simply only needed to have been more powerful than the Wii.

My point, MS doesn't deserve to fail, they're leaders in the gaming world and watch out Sony will copy them, they'll have motion control interface and voice function within a few years and cable TV integration and everything else MS does they'll do it too.

#31 Posted by Joedgabe (5090 posts) -

@Joedgabe said:

@lamprey263 said:

MS did more for shaping last gen than Sony, if MS wasn't there the PS4 would look more like a Wii U.

I doubt it. But M$ did bring online gaming to consoles, made it popular among them and showed that it would work. But i wouldn't go as far as saying it'll look like the Wii U.

MS really pushed the graphics boundary for home consoles more than Sony would have done by themselves without the competition, this helped bridge the differences between consoles and PC and helped for greater cross platform development between consoles and PC, helped give us some really great games during the generation. They didn't just bring online gaming to consoles in a greater extent, they brought a digital marketplace for XBLA games, DLC-add ons, game updates, larger retail games as digital downloads, achievements, party chat, friends lists, apps like Netflix and Hulu. Nothing of course was very original but they brought everything together in a nice package, setting the pace that Sony would have to compete against and thus shaping how things played out through the gen. And the PS3 wouldn't have been what it was without having to compete against MS, probably wouldn't have wasted money with the Cell and Blu-ray if MS wasn't competing, they'd simply only needed to have been more powerful than the Wii.

My point, MS doesn't deserve to fail, they're leaders in the gaming world and watch out Sony will copy them, they'll have motion control interface and voice function within a few years and cable TV integration and everything else MS does they'll do it too.

I doubt it..... I mean i wouldn't know.. i'm not them.. but from what i See Sony is always trying to use the "New tech" against it's competition. It used CD rom vs the N64 and it was quickly to run to Dvd with the PS2 and then last gen it used "the Cell" and blue ray to try and be ahead of M$. Sony is a electronics company while M$ is mostly a software one. Competition is always pushing boundaries between each other so w/e you're saying in favor of M$ can be said for everything. Now it's not convenient for anyone but Sony if M$ fails, but you're pushing it far beyond. They're not doing it as charity for the consumer's well being.. M$ is a known company that has practice monopoly and still does. Hell they've been to court for it but won because they're that loaded. The spirit of competition is thanks to the consumers for choosing both products not just the company.

#32 Posted by lamprey263 (22444 posts) -

Betweeen the Xbox 360, PS3, and Wii, the Xbox 360 has one of the best digital rights systems around. However, this probably came about as a result of the RROD fiasco. People who had failing consoles needed the ability to transfer rights to their replacement consoles, and thus came the rights transfer system that pretty much guarantees one of the strongest digital rights retention systems. Rights are tied to consoles, games can be played offline, if you want to transfer rights to a new console it's very easy, the owner account of those rights has the ability to do it as many times as they want.

I don't think MS implimented the 24/hour DRM check for an anti-consumer purpose, rather, I think it was a consequence of the no used games fiasco before the X1 reveal, as a result to allow for used games came the 24 hour digital rights check. The system all along was designed to be discless, therefore it could treat all games like digital rights (probably requiring only an online registration), then offline play would have probably been just as possible as it would be on the Xbox 360 for any digital titles. Adding game trades means that MS has to have a way to revoke rights if the game is traded, so people don't play offline then trade/sell their games. MS solution now is just to make the disc present for everything.

Now, one could always say the no used game is anti-consumer, personally I think used games are hurting consumers, and it's hurting developers and publishers. It hurts consumers because retailers refuse to carry new copies of games to sell buybacks, it makes finding new copies of older games or rare games even harder. Compared to last gen, the number of games retailers carry is a fraction of what they used to. It hurts developers because it requires developers to make all their money upon release of a game before the used game market kills future revenues, meaning it has to be an instant blockbuster hit or the publisher is going to can the studio, that also hurts the consumer because now they don't have the developer body to deliver the games many come to love because a lack of necessary commercial value. Lastly, if anybody thinks Sony hasn't thought of this before has a short memory, if you'll remember it was strongly considered before the release of the PS3 even. The only reason they're not doing it now is because of competition reasons, if MS were out of the picture Sony could very well implement such a policy and there'd be no competitor to fall back on. After all the Wii U can't deliver the same level of next gen experience and Steam... well, they already have a no used game policy.

MS might be an evil capitalist at heart, but no more so than any of the competition.

#33 Posted by TheRealBigRich (697 posts) -

Betweeen the Xbox 360, PS3, and Wii, the Xbox 360 has one of the best digital rights systems around. However, this probably came about as a result of the RROD fiasco. People who had failing consoles needed the ability to transfer rights to their replacement consoles, and thus came the rights transfer system that pretty much guarantees one of the strongest digital rights retention systems. Rights are tied to consoles, games can be played offline, if you want to transfer rights to a new console it's very easy, the owner account of those rights has the ability to do it as many times as they want.

I don't think MS implimented the 24/hour DRM check for an anti-consumer purpose, rather, I think it was a consequence of the no used games fiasco before the X1 reveal, as a result to allow for used games came the 24 hour digital rights check. The system all along was designed to be discless, therefore it could treat all games like digital rights (probably requiring only an online registration), then offline play would have probably been just as possible as it would be on the Xbox 360 for any digital titles. Adding game trades means that MS has to have a way to revoke rights if the game is traded, so people don't play offline then trade/sell their games. MS solution now is just to make the disc present for everything.

Now, one could always say the no used game is anti-consumer, personally I think used games are hurting consumers, and it's hurting developers and publishers. It hurts consumers because retailers refuse to carry new copies of games to sell buybacks, it makes finding new copies of older games or rare games even harder. Compared to last gen, the number of games retailers carry is a fraction of what they used to. It hurts developers because it requires developers to make all their money upon release of a game before the used game market kills future revenues, meaning it has to be an instant blockbuster hit or the publisher is going to can the studio, that also hurts the consumer because now they don't have the developer body to deliver the games many come to love because a lack of necessary commercial value. Lastly, if anybody thinks Sony hasn't thought of this before has a short memory, if you'll remember it was strongly considered before the release of the PS3 even. The only reason they're not doing it now is because of competition reasons, if MS were out of the picture Sony could very well implement such a policy and there'd be no competitor to fall back on. After all the Wii U can't deliver the same level of next gen experience and Steam... well, they already have a no used game policy.

MS might be an evil capitalist at heart, but no more so than any of the competition.

Exactly these are the things that people are not even trying to understand. The fact that the only reason games are 60 dollars is because developers know that more than likely half the games they sell are going to just be sold and bought used. So the fact that if MS could of created a steam like competitor with a longer offline mode like a month like steam and games immediately lower than 60 it could of worked. I actually am not made for what MS wanted just how they went about it which was dumb

#34 Posted by lamprey263 (22444 posts) -

@lamprey263 said:

Betweeen the Xbox 360, PS3, and Wii, the Xbox 360 has one of the best digital rights systems around. However, this probably came about as a result of the RROD fiasco. People who had failing consoles needed the ability to transfer rights to their replacement consoles, and thus came the rights transfer system that pretty much guarantees one of the strongest digital rights retention systems. Rights are tied to consoles, games can be played offline, if you want to transfer rights to a new console it's very easy, the owner account of those rights has the ability to do it as many times as they want.

I don't think MS implimented the 24/hour DRM check for an anti-consumer purpose, rather, I think it was a consequence of the no used games fiasco before the X1 reveal, as a result to allow for used games came the 24 hour digital rights check. The system all along was designed to be discless, therefore it could treat all games like digital rights (probably requiring only an online registration), then offline play would have probably been just as possible as it would be on the Xbox 360 for any digital titles. Adding game trades means that MS has to have a way to revoke rights if the game is traded, so people don't play offline then trade/sell their games. MS solution now is just to make the disc present for everything.

Now, one could always say the no used game is anti-consumer, personally I think used games are hurting consumers, and it's hurting developers and publishers. It hurts consumers because retailers refuse to carry new copies of games to sell buybacks, it makes finding new copies of older games or rare games even harder. Compared to last gen, the number of games retailers carry is a fraction of what they used to. It hurts developers because it requires developers to make all their money upon release of a game before the used game market kills future revenues, meaning it has to be an instant blockbuster hit or the publisher is going to can the studio, that also hurts the consumer because now they don't have the developer body to deliver the games many come to love because a lack of necessary commercial value. Lastly, if anybody thinks Sony hasn't thought of this before has a short memory, if you'll remember it was strongly considered before the release of the PS3 even. The only reason they're not doing it now is because of competition reasons, if MS were out of the picture Sony could very well implement such a policy and there'd be no competitor to fall back on. After all the Wii U can't deliver the same level of next gen experience and Steam... well, they already have a no used game policy.

MS might be an evil capitalist at heart, but no more so than any of the competition.

Exactly these are the things that people are not even trying to understand. The fact that the only reason games are 60 dollars is because developers know that more than likely half the games they sell are going to just be sold and bought used. So the fact that if MS could of created a steam like competitor with a longer offline mode like a month like steam and games immediately lower than 60 it could of worked. I actually am not made for what MS wanted just how they went about it which was dumb

how they went about it was probably what hurt them most, after all I felt they could have had a discless sytem that required online registration and still allowed for game trades, after all once a game is traded then the online would know to revoke previous rights to former users, now the previous owner could play offline to avoid getting rights revoked but since they need to go online to register new games the likelihood of them taking advantage of this is slim in my view, plus since the consoles and games have so many online features then people taking advantage of the system wouldn't get much out of their games or system making it a weak security feature

basically I think they could have kept discless play whether they wanted no used games or they wanted used games

#35 Posted by Murderstyle75 (4163 posts) -

@heretrix:

Yet multiplayer is only one feature and I have always believed multiplayer should have fees surrounding it if has premium features. Media features are an entirely different ball game and there are millions of people who have no interest. These people should not be paying extra to do what they already can through their tablets, smartphones and media top boxes.

#36 Posted by navyguy21 (12695 posts) -

So what did you think of Sony during gens 5-7?? Especially 6th

#38 Edited by heretrix (37253 posts) -

@Murderstyle75 said:

@heretrix:

Yet multiplayer is only one feature and I have always believed multiplayer should have fees surrounding it if has premium features. Media features are an entirely different ball game and there are millions of people who have no interest. These people should not be paying extra to do what they already can through their tablets, smartphones and media top boxes.

That's my point. Multiplayer is the only important feature. I really don't give a crap about the other stuff because it is available on a PC with a much better implementation.Multiplayer is the most relevant feature out of all of them on a gaming console. It has become an irrelevant issue because if you are paying to play multiplayer on both consoles you are going to get them either way.

#39 Posted by BigShotSmoov007 (228 posts) -

This is clearly just a fanboy rant that is pointless without any proof on your end. Sony is the same way and have been the same a--hole company. Have we forgotten the $600 PS3 and Sony's famous comment in response as to what we gamers should do if we can't afford a PS3, "if you can't afford a PS3 then you should get a second job" That isn't an a--hole comment to you? If Micosoft wasn't around cause you imagine how much Sony would be charging for the PS4, I hate to imagine.

#40 Edited by Cranler (7773 posts) -

@heretrix said:

MS and Sony do the same shit. If something is successful they will emulate it in some form or fashion. It's a shame people can't see that.

Micro transactions, Subscription based online, timed exclusivity or just outright exclusivity.

It doesn't matter who started it they both are doing it. What's worse? Doing something and finding out people hate it or watching someone do something, see that people hate it, but copy it anyway because it makes money?

People need to get off their idiotic high horses and understand this is business and eventually businesses want to make money, even if they feed you some bullshit about how much they love you.

Sony spends their money in a more consumer friendly way. While Sony creates new ip's like Last of US, MS spends their money buying dlc and game exclusivity. Paying Activision to keep Titanfall off of PS 4 and buying timed exclusivity for dlc does nothing for the consumer.

#41 Edited by Cranler (7773 posts) -

This is clearly just a fanboy rant that is pointless without any proof on your end. Sony is the same way and have been the same a--hole company. Have we forgotten the $600 PS3 and Sony's famous comment in response as to what we gamers should do if we can't afford a PS3, "if you can't afford a PS3 then you should get a second job" That isn't an a--hole comment to you? If Micosoft wasn't around cause you imagine how much Sony would be charging for the PS4, I hate to imagine.

PS 3 had blu ray which was a new format and standalone blu ray players were $800 at the time. Sony couldnt afford to sell it cheaper.

#42 Edited by TheRealBigRich (697 posts) -

@Cranler said:

@heretrix said:

MS and Sony do the same shit. If something is successful they will emulate it in some form or fashion. It's a shame people can't see that.

Micro transactions, Subscription based online, timed exclusivity or just outright exclusivity.

It doesn't matter who started it they both are doing it. What's worse? Doing something and finding out people hate it or watching someone do something, see that people hate it, but copy it anyway because it makes money?

People need to get off their idiotic high horses and understand this is business and eventually businesses want to make money, even if they feed you some bullshit about how much they love you.

Sony spends their money in a more consumer friendly way. While Sony creates new ip's like Last of US, MS spends their money buying dlc and game exclusivity. Paying Activision to keep Titanfall off of PS 4 and buying timed exclusivity does nothing for the consumer.

Wow ok So you would rather MS buy Respawn from EA or maybe the whole EA gaming division so that there is now way a ea game ever gets on a Sony system. Speaking of DLC who has GTA V or assassin's creed DLC exclusive I mean I have to be honest here and say that post is full of inaccuracy. I don't see how owning a company that then will never share there games with pc, wii u or Xbox is more consumer friendly than getting a deal for one game with a company like EA or Insomniac

#43 Posted by che5ter666 (670 posts) -

@jev221927:

I'd rather just have Sony,Nintendo,and Valve competing in the gaming industry.

Microsoft has THE MOST anti-consumer business policies/practices nowadays compared to its competitors.

Really pisses me off that a lot of gamers can't see through Microsoft's BS..

@Microsoft/Xbox fanboys. You think Microsoft is a better company than the other 3? Explain.

Otherwise, just keep paying more for less.

Explain? How about you bring reasons to a debate why you think they deserve to fail apart from 'anti-consumer business policies/practices'.

Like Sony are no different. They now too charge for premium multiplayer games and now use microtransactions in GT6. Don't think that this will be the end, this is just the beginning of Sony incorporating the same practises as MS.

#44 Posted by heretrix (37253 posts) -

@Cranler said:

@heretrix said:

MS and Sony do the same shit. If something is successful they will emulate it in some form or fashion. It's a shame people can't see that.

Micro transactions, Subscription based online, timed exclusivity or just outright exclusivity.

It doesn't matter who started it they both are doing it. What's worse? Doing something and finding out people hate it or watching someone do something, see that people hate it, but copy it anyway because it makes money?

People need to get off their idiotic high horses and understand this is business and eventually businesses want to make money, even if they feed you some bullshit about how much they love you.

Sony spends their money in a more consumer friendly way. While Sony creates new ip's like Last of US, MS spends their money buying dlc and game exclusivity. Paying Activision to keep Titanfall off of PS 4 and buying timed exclusivity for dlc does nothing for the consumer.

Bullshit. Sony buys exclusivity just as much as Microsoft does. There are lots of games that have Playstation only exclusive content that you will never see on other platforms. I really don't see how when Sony does this it's a good thing while MS gets dinged for it. That's really stupid.

And Sony's first party platform is built on the rubble of a few once great dev houses (like Psygnosis) who are now basically a faded memory, dissolved into multiple Sony FP studios. I don't see how buying a developer outright more consumer friendly than spending cash on a timed exclusivity deal. At least with the latter it will eventually be available on other platforms.

Personally I don't think either is a bad thing, it's just a business move. Do you buy a studio outright and take on the risk of a lot of overhead or do you make a publishing deal that isn't going to bleed you dry if the game flops financially?

#45 Posted by Dannystaples14 (902 posts) -

@jev221927: More for less? The consoles are identical. If you removed the Kinect from the console they would be the same price. So it is more for more really isn't it?

The only thing you need to do is decide whether you want a Kinect or not.

Most of the games will be multiplatform, and since the Xbox One is less powerful they will make the games for that and then port them onto the PS4. Then at the last second they will increase the resolution. That will be the only difference.

The PS3 was a piece of shit. The CELL was the main culprit, oh yeah and the properly shit Dual Shock 3 and the fact it looked like a bead bin and was overpriced and couldn't do anything that the Xbox 360 couldn't do for most of its life cycle.

Then they bring out the PS4 and apart from some Dual Shock tweaks, and a change in interface and putting more power in it is still as uninviting as the PS3. It has barely changed anything.

At least Microsoft had a go. At least they know the definition of innovation. Some ideas may be kinda crap, like the Kinect sure. But they also know that casuals will love it. Casuals outnumber hardcore gamers by a considerable margin these days.

Above all else both consoles are games consoles, both will play games and both will be great at doing so. Immature little children like you can't see that and need to fan already very tedious and ridiculous console war flames.

So enjoy your Xbox One ports. Until a game comes out that isn't multi platform (which is what? Once or twice a year?) that is all you will be playing.

#46 Posted by Cranler (7773 posts) -

@Cranler said:

@heretrix said:

MS and Sony do the same shit. If something is successful they will emulate it in some form or fashion. It's a shame people can't see that.

Micro transactions, Subscription based online, timed exclusivity or just outright exclusivity.

It doesn't matter who started it they both are doing it. What's worse? Doing something and finding out people hate it or watching someone do something, see that people hate it, but copy it anyway because it makes money?

People need to get off their idiotic high horses and understand this is business and eventually businesses want to make money, even if they feed you some bullshit about how much they love you.

Sony spends their money in a more consumer friendly way. While Sony creates new ip's like Last of US, MS spends their money buying dlc and game exclusivity. Paying Activision to keep Titanfall off of PS 4 and buying timed exclusivity does nothing for the consumer.

Wow ok So you would rather MS buy Respawn from EA or maybe the whole EA gaming division so that there is now way a ea game ever gets on a Sony system. Speaking of DLC who has GTA V or assassin's creed DLC exclusive I mean I have to be honest here and say that post is full of inaccuracy. I don't see how owning a company that then will never share there games with pc, wii u or Xbox is more consumer friendly than getting a deal for one game with a company like EA or Insomniac

We have no proof that Uncharted, God of War, Killzone, Last of Us etc would exist if it were not for Sony's funding. Halo, Gears, Alan Wake, Titanfall etc we know for sure would exist without any intervention from MS.

MS spent $50 million for 1 year GTA 4 episodes exclusivity. Money that could have been spent on a whole new ip.

#47 Posted by BigShotSmoov007 (228 posts) -

@Cranler said:

@BigShotSmoov007 said:

This is clearly just a fanboy rant that is pointless without any proof on your end. Sony is the same way and have been the same a--hole company. Have we forgotten the $600 PS3 and Sony's famous comment in response as to what we gamers should do if we can't afford a PS3, "if you can't afford a PS3 then you should get a second job" That isn't an a--hole comment to you? If Micosoft wasn't around cause you imagine how much Sony would be charging for the PS4, I hate to imagine.

PS 3 had blu ray which was a new format and standalone blu ray players were $800 at the time. Sony couldnt afford to sell it cheaper.

Whether Sony couldn't sell the PS3 at a cheaper price or not is irrelevant to my point, and honestly a large company like Sony couldn't have reduced the price of the PS3 at launch to $500, Really? They could have done that if they wanted too and made up the cost in software, they just choosed to keep it at that price. My point was the response that Sony gave to people that voiced their concern about the price. To tell people to get a second job to buy your product is an A--hole move, period. Plus, lets be realistic, the only reason the PS4 doesn't have that eye toy and is priced at $400 is because of MS. They are trying to beat MS and cut corners on their initial plan so they can be the cheapest console out there. Like I said earlier, if MS wasn't there, the PS4 would have come with the Camera like they wanted and would have been $500 also or maybe more.

#48 Edited by Cranler (7773 posts) -

@heretrix said:

@Cranler said:

@heretrix said:

MS and Sony do the same shit. If something is successful they will emulate it in some form or fashion. It's a shame people can't see that.

Micro transactions, Subscription based online, timed exclusivity or just outright exclusivity.

It doesn't matter who started it they both are doing it. What's worse? Doing something and finding out people hate it or watching someone do something, see that people hate it, but copy it anyway because it makes money?

People need to get off their idiotic high horses and understand this is business and eventually businesses want to make money, even if they feed you some bullshit about how much they love you.

Sony spends their money in a more consumer friendly way. While Sony creates new ip's like Last of US, MS spends their money buying dlc and game exclusivity. Paying Activision to keep Titanfall off of PS 4 and buying timed exclusivity for dlc does nothing for the consumer.

Bullshit. Sony buys exclusivity just as much as Microsoft does. There are lots of games that have Playstation only exclusive content that you will never see on other platforms. I really don't see how when Sony does this it's a good thing while MS gets dinged for it. That's really stupid.

And Sony's first party platform is built on the rubble of a few once great dev houses (like Psygnosis) who are now basically a faded memory, dissolved into multiple Sony FP studios. I don't see how buying a developer outright more consumer friendly than spending cash on a timed exclusivity deal. At least with the latter it will eventually be available on other platforms.

Personally I don't think either is a bad thing, it's just a business move. Do you buy a studio outright and take on the risk of a lot of overhead or do you make a publishing deal that isn't going to bleed you dry if the game flops financially?

If MS is no worse than Sony then why doesnt MS(who has WAY more money) have any great original IP's like God of War, Uncharted or Last of US. We all know Halo and Gears would have been made without any intervention from MS.

Theres a big difference between playing keep away by buying exclusivity and funding the development of a game.

#49 Posted by heretrix (37253 posts) -

@Cranler said:

@heretrix said:

@Cranler said:

@heretrix said:

MS and Sony do the same shit. If something is successful they will emulate it in some form or fashion. It's a shame people can't see that.

Micro transactions, Subscription based online, timed exclusivity or just outright exclusivity.

It doesn't matter who started it they both are doing it. What's worse? Doing something and finding out people hate it or watching someone do something, see that people hate it, but copy it anyway because it makes money?

People need to get off their idiotic high horses and understand this is business and eventually businesses want to make money, even if they feed you some bullshit about how much they love you.

Sony spends their money in a more consumer friendly way. While Sony creates new ip's like Last of US, MS spends their money buying dlc and game exclusivity. Paying Activision to keep Titanfall off of PS 4 and buying timed exclusivity for dlc does nothing for the consumer.

Bullshit. Sony buys exclusivity just as much as Microsoft does. There are lots of games that have Playstation only exclusive content that you will never see on other platforms. I really don't see how when Sony does this it's a good thing while MS gets dinged for it. That's really stupid.

And Sony's first party platform is built on the rubble of a few once great dev houses (like Psygnosis) who are now basically a faded memory, dissolved into multiple Sony FP studios. I don't see how buying a developer outright more consumer friendly than spending cash on a timed exclusivity deal. At least with the latter it will eventually be available on other platforms.

Personally I don't think either is a bad thing, it's just a business move. Do you buy a studio outright and take on the risk of a lot of overhead or do you make a publishing deal that isn't going to bleed you dry if the game flops financially?

If MS is no worse than Sony then why doesnt MS(who has WAY more money) have any great original IP's like God of War, Uncharted or Last of US. We all know Halo and Gears would have been made without any intervention from MS.

Theres a big difference between playing keep away by buying exclusivity and funding the development of a game.

The Playstation brand has an immense head start in the development of first party IP. The original Playstation came out at an extremely pivotal time, when the Amiga/Atari ST platforms were waning and some of the dev houses where available to be bought. They were smart and those purchases laid the groundwork for the first party platform they have today.

The Xbox brand didn't really have that luxury and their studio purchases were mainly duds, forcing them to do a purge to save money (smart move). The problem that MS had/has is that when Mattrick took over they decided to go all in on Kinect which wasn't such a great idea. The problem is do they go back to the extremely expensive tactic of buying dev houses or just buy temporary or permanent exclusivity to remain financially competitive?

Sony has done a better job of bringing new IP to market but the fact remains, at the end of the day you are still keeping people from playing a game, no matter what your intent is.

#50 Posted by RossRichard (2306 posts) -

Sony is just as bad. Anyone remember the rootkit fiasco? That was just as bad as what MS was trying to do with the XBone.