Quantcast
Does Sony Care More About Their Gamer's Then Microsoft and Nintendo...

Forums - Sony Discussion - Does Sony Care More About Their Gamer's Then Microsoft and Nintendo...

Does Sony Care More About Their Gamer's Then Microsoft and Nintendo...

Yes 283 46.85%
 
No 321 53.15%
 
Total:604

PS3News is crazy. Anyone who thinks a corp. cares for you is crazy too.



Around the Network

I think all 3 care for their customers. We are the ones throwing cash at them. I just think some listen more to their customers.



                                  Gaming Away Life Since 1985


JimmyDanger said:
theprof00 said:
JimmyDanger said:

You can't make a profit on high end TV's? Just ask Samsung! They're laughing all the way to the bank. And yes - Samsung's high end TV's are just as good (if not better in many cases) than Sonys.

And Rich people only buy as many TV's (probably the most expensive  "high end" TV's on the market , because they're y'know - rich and all) as people on 100k a year (I don't know if that's "rich" but 100k a year would make me a hell of a lot richer than I am now!) - have you seen those episodes of MTV Cribs? Rappers with 50" LCD's in every room of their house? A TV (or two) for the yacht, holiday retreats, custom limo/hummer - of course those "poor" people buy just as many TV's right?

Jimmy Danger, jsut so I can help you understand this debate between Kowen and myself, a couple months ago, Kowen made the statement that Sony was failing. After much argument, he pointed to tvs being the worst performing aspect of the company. I agreed. He went on to say that big changes would have to be made or the company would be facing dire straits, though I am unsure whether or not he mentioned axing the division as a solution.

Then, Sony made big changes, and pulled out a lot of stake in tvs. Suddenly, kowen was on the other side ofthe coin saying that this was a big mistake, and that by big changes, he meant "make it profitable". My argument was that Sony is in a tough position as they have to buy their equipment more than others and can't offer better prices.

You'd best not involve yourself in the discussion because Sony making the wrong decision is the only thing kowen ever sees, in any situation.

To address your other response, I meant as a ratio. For example, I make 40k a year and I have 5k$ worth of tvs. That's 8% of my income at any point in time. Does someone on cribs spend more than 8% of their income on tvs? I highly doubt it. Someone who makes a million would have to spend 80 grand on televisions in order to equal the same amount of spending. For a high paid actor, 20m per movie, they would have to spend roughly 1.6m on tvs.

The more money you make, the more the ratio looks like it would fail.

It's not hard to understand. It's a fundamental principle of economics. A shrinking middle class is bad for the economy because the things that the majority of people want become less affordable, and are bought in less quantity by the wealthy.


You and Kowen should get a room and have your private little massive debate in there.

You said something I disagreed with - (You can't make a profit off high end TV's) - I disagreed. I didn't realise only Kowen was allowed to disagree with.

And while I agree with the shrinking middle class = bad/shrinking economy - in regards to your "ratio" economics/Tv rationale  - there's a reason rich people generally remain rich, and that is because they don't spend 20 x on consumer goods as people earning 20 x less than them. They don't buy 20 litres of milk for your one (but they will generally buy a more "premium, high end milk", and maybe 1 or 2 times as much) or a 20k TV as opposed to a 1k TV. I have no doubt that someone on Cribs may spend 80k on "entertainment" (80k would be a cheap party hosting cost for catering/DJ's/Bands/Hosts/Decorations) - to match your %8. And while you pay off your 200k house (hypothetical example) - he (the 1 mill salary guy) is likely to not be paying off 3 or 4-  1 mill properties,  rather than paying off 30 * 200k houses (unless he's a property investor by trade). While Joe Citizen may have $50 left off his $400 per week at the end of the week (or say 1/8 - 12.5%) while Pinky McBling may well have 15,000 (or %75) of his 20k per week (can very depending on excesses) and still maintain a lifestyle well above the basic cost of living.

Some more basic economics - economy of scale doesn't necessarily translate from macro to micro. 2.5 % profit can be an amazingly good return for a multibillion dollar corporation primarily concerned with developing and selling goods (with the exception of some "boom" companies )- but disaster for a small to medium sized business. You'll find the further you go up the scale in terms of gross turnover the smaller the actual margins need to be. Why supermarkets can afford to sell much, much cheaper than corner stores (aside from their obvious group buying power).

well now you've gone and done that all in vain. Don't say I didn't warn you, but I definitely did not say that you couldn't make a profit on high end tvs.

If you want to make an argument about something, address exactly what point I made, because I can't tell. I didn't say 2.5% was bad. Kowen did, to which I pointed out that samsung was 1.7 and some other company (LG?) was 1.3.



S.T.A.G.E. said:
d21lewis said:
Michael-5 said:
 

Actually I own a 360, a Wii, and a DS, and I owned a PS3 in the past, but it broke outside of warrenty. I don't have an outsider view.

Also most quality titles on PS3? Where were you before 2009? Sure now PS3 had a better 2009 and 2011, but what did they release in 2010, a single game (GT5)? You can't just look at the most recent year and forget about all the others. Quality wise Nintendo is the best, MS is #2, Sony is last, but they are catching up where Wii is nearly done, and 360's focus has shifted to Kinect.

I disagree with you. As a gaming device I still think the 360 is supperior to PS3. If you just want to play games, 360 is cheaper, and has more exclusives, of better quality.PS3 however is a multi-purpose device, and is more reliable.

Not sure if I can agree about Sony being the most stable at E3, what has PSP gotten in the last few years? PS3 early life was composed of announced titles which took 4 years or more to release, some of the gmaes (mainly third party) have yet to be released.

As for Nintendo, I think you are way off. Out of all the consoles this gen, Nintendo has the most wanted exclusives. It don't think all 30 million Mario Kart sales are due to casual gamers, and games like Super Mario Galaxy, Zelda, and Smash Bros consistantly outsell almost any 360/PS3 title excluding Halo. They definatly do release the most shovelware, but who cares. They still produce a strong amount of AAA quality titles, most of which are above the HD exclusive standard (only exclusive above Zelda last year was Uncharted, and I think XenoBlade/The Last Story will rank super high as well).

Just passing through and I saw the discussion.   Just adding to what you already said--The Wii is the home to the most shovelware but Nintendo themselves have releases megahit after megahit.  They really give Wii owners a reason to own the console.  I could have nothing but a library of Nintendo's releases and I'd be happy with my Wii.  I would put the games released this gen by Nintendo up against anything released by Sony and Microsoft.  The PS3 and Xbox are the home of the third party quality games.  When it comes to first party, Nintendo stands alone on the mountain top.


Outside of Mario, Super Smash Bros and the Zelda franchise Nintendo has nothing on Sony or Microsoft. Its the same stuff with new gameplay, unless its being made for casuals. Nintendos best new IP's are third party titles which arent associated with them this gen. Nintendo needs to learn to trust key third party because they've been helping during tough times for actual gamers. Nintendo has had more gaming droughts out of any of the consoles and Microsoft takes second place this gen for sure. This was yet another thing they were speaking about on Bonus Round.  Microsoft thought they could hang with Sony when it came to actual game production. Microsoft relies on third parties for everything of pure importance. Sony does not rely on third parties. Sony has always had the third parties because they were the ones to round them up  and show they gave a damn when Nintendo and Sega were ignoring them. They knew library was key to success before they even entered the gaming industry and hit the ground running their first gen. 

Outside Uncharted, God of War, and Gran Turismo, Sony has nothing on Nintendo. Outside Halo, Gears and Forza MS has nothing on Nintendo. I can apply your logic in the opposite direction easily.

Do you forget that Metroid Prime 3 has a meta score of 90/100, and that other games in that franchise have seen a metascore as high as 97/100. That's more then ANY Sony 1st party exclusive.

Do you forget that Mario Kart outsells both GT5 and Forza 3 combined x2!

Do you forget that XenoBlade has the highest score for a JRPG this gen?

No, Nintendo is much more then Mario, Zelda, and Smash Bros, those are just games you are interested in. Nintendo offers the most AAA quality titles, and with Nintendo we know the quality is consistantly high.

You critisize MS and Nintendo for having gaming droughts, but what does Sony offer for 2012 for the PS3? For 2011 Sony didn't even release a single 1st party game for the PSP, and where were you before 2009 when PS3 only had Resistance, Motorstorm, and Uncharted 1 (a good, but not great game)? Nintnedo had Super Mario Galaxy, Zelda, Mario Kart, Smash Bros, Metroid Prime, Fire Emblem, and a whole assortment of 9/10 or greater titles. Microsoft too had Halo, Gears, Forza, PGR, Fable, and many timed exclusives.

Gaming is defined by more then 1 or two strong years of sales. 2007 and 2008 are largely regarded to be two of the greatest years in gaming, not only for this gen, but of all time, and guess what? It's because of Nintendo and MS, not Sony. Just because Sony is catching wind near the end of the PS3's life means nothing.

d21lewis: I agree with you. Metroid Prime 3 is much better then any shooter hybrid or shooter this gen (well I like Mass Effect 2 better, but that's not exclusive). Smash Bros is my favorite fighter, and Mario Kart is probably that unmissable title to own. With XenoBlade and The Last Story comming, Wii has more must have titles then PS3 and 360. People who don't see that, probably don't own a Wii, and just label it because that's the easiest thing to do.



What is with all the hate? Don't read GamrReview Articles. Contact me to ADD games to the Database
Vote for the March Most Wanted / February Results

d21lewis said:

It comes down to personal preference but Nintendo has the games people want to play and they cater to all audiences, hardcore and casual.  From Fire Emblem to Metroid to Zelda to Wii Sports to Pilot Wings to F-Zero to Kirby to Punch-Out. Some of their game franchises may look childish and kiddie but they actually require more skill and gaming ability than any of Sony/Microsofts franchises.  Anybody can and will beat Halo, Gears, or Uncharted.  Will just anybody be able to beat Donkey Kong Country Returns or Metroid Prime 3? 

One of the biggest reasons why third parties didn't do well on a Nintendo console is because they had to compete with Nintendo franchises.  Nintendo trusts their third parties.  That's one of the reasons they didn't launch the 3DS with their big franchises.....and you see how that worked out.  Still, Capcom (RES EVIL), Namco (Tekken), and Konami (Metal Gear) are releasing titles on the 3DS.  With the Wii, anybody could (and did) release whatever they wanted.  Why was it that Nintendo's games sold and their could not? 

As for gaming droughts, yeah.  Nintendo's Wii had more of them than anybody.  But that's not because of Nintendo.  They put our more games than anybody, this gen--even the mighty Sony and their PS3 exclusives (which included multiple re-releases).  The difference is that Sony and, especially, Microsoft could rely on third parties.  Nintendo didn't have that luxury.  For the most part, the burden of making the Wii (not so much the DS and 3DS) a worthwhile console fell on them and them, alone.  And, looking at my collection, they rose to the challenge--just like they always do.

And the comment about the "Same stuff with new gameplay"?  Is it better to have the same stuff with old gameplay like God of War, Uncharted, or Twisted Metal?  Graphics or innovation.  Where do your loyalties lay?

Wanna go list for list or talk about history and why 3rd parties went with Sony (and now, Microsoft)?  I got all night....or at least40 minutes.

I love the bold, I don't totally agree, but yes it's true. Resident Evil 4 on Gamecube sold good, but not great. The PS2 port did better, but at the same token Isn't Tales of Symphonia the best selling Tales of game, and don't JRPG's sell dump trucks loads full on the DS? Nintendo console owners have unique tastes in games, and Nintendo, unlike Sony and MS, caters to all gamers well.

Wii didn't get much third party support because Gamecube sold so crappy, and like SEGA many thought Nintendo might be out of the home console war. Back in the NES and SNES days, Nintendo consoles got the most 3rd party support, and it's still the case for Nintendo handhelds. I think Wii U will change that, Nintendo is big on 3rd party support.

Just want to add, I have more HD games then Wii, but when I look at my esclucives, I value the Wii ones more. Like you said, even if I beat Donkey Kong Country: Returns, Smash Bros, and Mario Kart (Not so much Metroid Prime) I will want to return to them. Some 360 games are like that with heavy online support, but I have yet to play a PS3 exclusive which I came back to after beating it.

Nintendo puts more effort into making fun worthwhile games. This is why Nintendo games never depreciate. Try to get a copy of Mario Kart now, it's still a $50 game. I can't say the same for Forza or GT.



What is with all the hate? Don't read GamrReview Articles. Contact me to ADD games to the Database
Vote for the March Most Wanted / February Results

Around the Network
theprof00 said:
JimmyDanger said:
theprof00 said:
JimmyDanger said:

You can't make a profit on high end TV's? Just ask Samsung! They're laughing all the way to the bank. And yes - Samsung's high end TV's are just as good (if not better in many cases) than Sonys.

And Rich people only buy as many TV's (probably the most expensive  "high end" TV's on the market , because they're y'know - rich and all) as people on 100k a year (I don't know if that's "rich" but 100k a year would make me a hell of a lot richer than I am now!) - have you seen those episodes of MTV Cribs? Rappers with 50" LCD's in every room of their house? A TV (or two) for the yacht, holiday retreats, custom limo/hummer - of course those "poor" people buy just as many TV's right?

Jimmy Danger, jsut so I can help you understand this debate between Kowen and myself, a couple months ago, Kowen made the statement that Sony was failing. After much argument, he pointed to tvs being the worst performing aspect of the company. I agreed. He went on to say that big changes would have to be made or the company would be facing dire straits, though I am unsure whether or not he mentioned axing the division as a solution.

Then, Sony made big changes, and pulled out a lot of stake in tvs. Suddenly, kowen was on the other side ofthe coin saying that this was a big mistake, and that by big changes, he meant "make it profitable". My argument was that Sony is in a tough position as they have to buy their equipment more than others and can't offer better prices.

You'd best not involve yourself in the discussion because Sony making the wrong decision is the only thing kowen ever sees, in any situation.

To address your other response, I meant as a ratio. For example, I make 40k a year and I have 5k$ worth of tvs. That's 8% of my income at any point in time. Does someone on cribs spend more than 8% of their income on tvs? I highly doubt it. Someone who makes a million would have to spend 80 grand on televisions in order to equal the same amount of spending. For a high paid actor, 20m per movie, they would have to spend roughly 1.6m on tvs.

The more money you make, the more the ratio looks like it would fail.

It's not hard to understand. It's a fundamental principle of economics. A shrinking middle class is bad for the economy because the things that the majority of people want become less affordable, and are bought in less quantity by the wealthy.


You and Kowen should get a room and have your private little massive debate in there.

You said something I disagreed with - (You can't make a profit off high end TV's) - I disagreed. I didn't realise only Kowen was allowed to disagree with.

And while I agree with the shrinking middle class = bad/shrinking economy - in regards to your "ratio" economics/Tv rationale  - there's a reason rich people generally remain rich, and that is because they don't spend 20 x on consumer goods as people earning 20 x less than them. They don't buy 20 litres of milk for your one (but they will generally buy a more "premium, high end milk", and maybe 1 or 2 times as much) or a 20k TV as opposed to a 1k TV. I have no doubt that someone on Cribs may spend 80k on "entertainment" (80k would be a cheap party hosting cost for catering/DJ's/Bands/Hosts/Decorations) - to match your %8. And while you pay off your 200k house (hypothetical example) - he (the 1 mill salary guy) is likely to not be paying off 3 or 4-  1 mill properties,  rather than paying off 30 * 200k houses (unless he's a property investor by trade). While Joe Citizen may have $50 left off his $400 per week at the end of the week (or say 1/8 - 12.5%) while Pinky McBling may well have 15,000 (or %75) of his 20k per week (can very depending on excesses) and still maintain a lifestyle well above the basic cost of living.

Some more basic economics - economy of scale doesn't necessarily translate from macro to micro. 2.5 % profit can be an amazingly good return for a multibillion dollar corporation primarily concerned with developing and selling goods (with the exception of some "boom" companies )- but disaster for a small to medium sized business. You'll find the further you go up the scale in terms of gross turnover the smaller the actual margins need to be. Why supermarkets can afford to sell much, much cheaper than corner stores (aside from their obvious group buying power).

well now you've gone and done that all in vain. Don't say I didn't warn you, but I definitely did not say that you couldn't make a profit on high end tvs.

If you want to make an argument about something, address exactly what point I made, because I can't tell. I didn't say 2.5% was bad. Kowen did, to which I pointed out that samsung was 1.7 and some other company (LG?) was 1.3.


I didn't really want to make an argument or address any particular points , I just like to ramble on sometimes. I never pointed at you for saying it, you may have my rsponse to some post waaay back in the thread (which I posted faaaar too late) with some other conversation/discussion you had.

I mean who knows who talks about what anymore! I stand by all the truth I said but I've got no idea if it was really a genuine response to someone or just thoughts bubbling from certain bits and bobs of information from various posters that pooped onto the screen.

It's all good man. Sorry if you thought I had some argument with you - my thoughts went kinda tangential. I'm a rambler - not a fighter.



oniyide said:
PS3News is crazy. Anyone who thinks a corp. cares for you is crazy too.

Sony cares about us more then you think oniyide. :)



ThePS3News said:

Sony has always been trying there hardest to have the "Most Powerful" platform on the market since they entered the gaming industry. They have suffered losses from both the PS2, PS3, and now PS Vita due to craming in so much tech and specs at lauch in their platforms.

Sony also does not make their consumers pay for their online service like the "other guy" does and has promised that psn will remain free. Weather or not its infearior or not is still debatably...

Sony also has arguably the best first party development team out of the "Big 3" and they show no sign of not slowing down in getting more developers to join SCE.

With Sony having lost billions on the PS3 and now losing money on the PS Vita, Do you think Sony is being too generous to thier consumers willing to keep investing in 1st party studios and continue to lose money on thier platforms to give their consumers the best possible gaming expernice??? 



Most powerful? You do know the PS1 was weaker than the N64 and the PS2 was weaker than the Gamecube and Xbox. And how exactly did Sony take a loss on the PS2. It's launch was huge, it's the best selling home console of all time. Cmon, at least get your facts straight before you make posts.

Sigs are dumb. And so are you!

oniyide said:
PS3News is crazy. Anyone who thinks a corp. cares for you is crazy too.

That's my point exactly.  While I won't argue that Sony cares less than MS and Nintendo, they certainly do not care more.  All successful corporations want to keep customers happy so as to make a profit.  Each of the 3 companies have different ways and ideas about how this should be done, but "caring for gamers" directly has NOTHING to do with it.  I suppose it would come down to which strategies resonate with an individual.  For example, if Sony's ideas appeal to a specific person, then said person may be inclined to beleive that Sony cares more about them than either MS or Nintendo when (in fact) none of the 3 do.



Michael-5 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
d21lewis said:
Michael-5 said:
 

Actually I own a 360, a Wii, and a DS, and I owned a PS3 in the past, but it broke outside of warrenty. I don't have an outsider view.

Also most quality titles on PS3? Where were you before 2009? Sure now PS3 had a better 2009 and 2011, but what did they release in 2010, a single game (GT5)? You can't just look at the most recent year and forget about all the others. Quality wise Nintendo is the best, MS is #2, Sony is last, but they are catching up where Wii is nearly done, and 360's focus has shifted to Kinect.

I disagree with you. As a gaming device I still think the 360 is supperior to PS3. If you just want to play games, 360 is cheaper, and has more exclusives, of better quality.PS3 however is a multi-purpose device, and is more reliable.

Not sure if I can agree about Sony being the most stable at E3, what has PSP gotten in the last few years? PS3 early life was composed of announced titles which took 4 years or more to release, some of the gmaes (mainly third party) have yet to be released.

As for Nintendo, I think you are way off. Out of all the consoles this gen, Nintendo has the most wanted exclusives. It don't think all 30 million Mario Kart sales are due to casual gamers, and games like Super Mario Galaxy, Zelda, and Smash Bros consistantly outsell almost any 360/PS3 title excluding Halo. They definatly do release the most shovelware, but who cares. They still produce a strong amount of AAA quality titles, most of which are above the HD exclusive standard (only exclusive above Zelda last year was Uncharted, and I think XenoBlade/The Last Story will rank super high as well).

Just passing through and I saw the discussion.   Just adding to what you already said--The Wii is the home to the most shovelware but Nintendo themselves have releases megahit after megahit.  They really give Wii owners a reason to own the console.  I could have nothing but a library of Nintendo's releases and I'd be happy with my Wii.  I would put the games released this gen by Nintendo up against anything released by Sony and Microsoft.  The PS3 and Xbox are the home of the third party quality games.  When it comes to first party, Nintendo stands alone on the mountain top.


Outside of Mario, Super Smash Bros and the Zelda franchise Nintendo has nothing on Sony or Microsoft. Its the same stuff with new gameplay, unless its being made for casuals. Nintendos best new IP's are third party titles which arent associated with them this gen. Nintendo needs to learn to trust key third party because they've been helping during tough times for actual gamers. Nintendo has had more gaming droughts out of any of the consoles and Microsoft takes second place this gen for sure. This was yet another thing they were speaking about on Bonus Round.  Microsoft thought they could hang with Sony when it came to actual game production. Microsoft relies on third parties for everything of pure importance. Sony does not rely on third parties. Sony has always had the third parties because they were the ones to round them up  and show they gave a damn when Nintendo and Sega were ignoring them. They knew library was key to success before they even entered the gaming industry and hit the ground running their first gen. 

Outside Uncharted, God of War, and Gran Turismo, Sony has nothing on Nintendo. Outside Halo, Gears and Forza MS has nothing on Nintendo. I can apply your logic in the opposite direction easily.

Do you forget that Metroid Prime 3 has a meta score of 90/100, and that other games in that franchise have seen a metascore as high as 97/100. That's more then ANY Sony 1st party exclusive.

Do you forget that Mario Kart outsells both GT5 and Forza 3 combined x2!

Do you forget that XenoBlade has the highest score for a JRPG this gen?

No, Nintendo is much more then Mario, Zelda, and Smash Bros, those are just games you are interested in. Nintendo offers the most AAA quality titles, and with Nintendo we know the quality is consistantly high.

You critisize MS and Nintendo for having gaming droughts, but what does Sony offer for 2012 for the PS3? For 2011 Sony didn't even release a single 1st party game for the PSP, and where were you before 2009 when PS3 only had Resistance, Motorstorm, and Uncharted 1 (a good, but not great game)? Nintnedo had Super Mario Galaxy, Zelda, Mario Kart, Smash Bros, Metroid Prime, Fire Emblem, and a whole assortment of 9/10 or greater titles. Microsoft too had Halo, Gears, Forza, PGR, Fable, and many timed exclusives.

Gaming is defined by more then 1 or two strong years of sales. 2007 and 2008 are largely regarded to be two of the greatest years in gaming, not only for this gen, but of all time, and guess what? It's because of Nintendo and MS, not Sony. Just because Sony is catching wind near the end of the PS3's life means nothing.

d21lewis: I agree with you. Metroid Prime 3 is much better then any shooter hybrid or shooter this gen (well I like Mass Effect 2 better, but that's not exclusive). Smash Bros is my favorite fighter, and Mario Kart is probably that unmissable title to own. With XenoBlade and The Last Story comming, Wii has more must have titles then PS3 and 360. People who don't see that, probably don't own a Wii, and just label it because that's the easiest thing to do

You've written a great wall and my time is slim as you've noticed because we've had our squabbles, discussions (call 'em what you will) in the past. The FACT of the matter is Nintendo and Sony both give a damn about investing in gaming more than Microsoft. If this wasn't true and Sony was so far out of touch with people who game they would've never hit the ground  running during the launch of the first Playstation. Microsoft could not mirror such accolades and they still haven't. The difference that exists between Sony and  Nintendo though my friend is that Nintendo gives you the same characters with new experiences  each gen, and Sony gives new experiences with new characters each gen (with the old characters coming up once in a while to say hello). There is no dependence, and nothing can prove this point any better than Sony launching their own version of Super Smash Bros t (oh I wish for the day) . The amount of high profile characters Sony put on the map is staggering. 

For the record Sony had a gaming drought only for a year or year and a half at best (depending on your complaint) not two years. Sony has been pumping out classic titles which represent he PS3 since the console launched. Kameo was great, but it did not define the Xbox, Perfect Dark certainly didnt either, but it took three years for a certain game known as Halo 3 to resurface in 2008, which was a year both Microsoft and Sony shined. Microsoft got their one and only to launch and Sony got the first title to launch that would boost their console sales through the roof in MGS4 in june of 2008. The biggest problem now my friend is that the first party titles are drying up  (in a sea of third party titles) and the exclusives are starting to show their exhaust this is where the PS3 gained its true value as a console. As the years keep rolling on the Xbox 360 will keep turning into the living room cable box and the PS3 will keep getting more games. The question that everyone should be asking is the way the 360 is going out this gen, is this the way you want the 720's launch to begin? My question you would  be, do you like videogames? Thats the only question I pose if you truly believe Microsoft has done more for the gamer than Sony. Relying on third parties, investing in non-gaming, getting chummy with the UFC, acquiring skype and the various multimedia aspects doesnt prove it. All this just to prove that Xbox live is worth $60, and in the end losing focus of what the Xbox disc drive is supposed to be used for.

You dont have to like Sony exclusives. The point is who gives a damn more. Simple.