| Groucho said: I'll be the first to say it: Microsoft. Microsoft sucks. I would prefer they stay away from gaming -- they're only in the console market to protect their other interests, and that doesn't benefit the gamer in any way. They don't even care about competing, and upping the gaming quality bar, as much as making sure the other guy can't compete with Windows. Lame. |
Some of those points aren't really valid IMO.
Point 1: I guess it depends on opinion. I don't mind paying for the online service. It has a fair amount of more functionality over PSN. Whether it's worth $50 depends on the person. It can also be found much cheaper than $50 if you look around.
Point 2: Some see it as money gouging, other's see it as choice. Again, it depends on the person. I personally liked having the options. I didn't have to invest in HD-DVD and I don't need wireless so that saved me some money for Live (ha!) right there. Having said that, I'm also glad I helped Blu Ray win by investing in a PS3.
Point 3: At the start of the lifetime I agree - the hardware was extremely shoddy. That's why I waited for the Falcon chipset. Damaging DVD's? I don't have a problem with that. Most reports of damaged disks I've heard of were because people were stupid enough to move it while the disc was spinning inside.
Point 4: The only add-on you need is the hard drive - And if one really wanted to get the most out of the system one would invest in a hard drive model from the get-go.
Point 5: That's business. They may seem like an evil corporation for doing so but they're simply doing what makes them money. If I worked at a company I'd do what I could to maximize revenue and gain market share as well. It would mean omre money for me. I'm not sure anyone would do differently.
Point 6: I agree with this one. MS is really hurting themselves by not supporting their first party developers (as few as they may be) in utilizing the strengths uniquely found in the 360's hardware (unified memory architecture and unified shader/texture pipelines). Sony and Nintendo are doing a great job here by discovering their system's weaknesses and mitigating them through the strengths.
Point 7: Again, opinion. I personally still use the Dashboard because I couldn't care less about the extra fluff and I like to get straight to the gaming, but there are people out there that enjoy it.
MS has introduced a lot to the gaming scene. They've accelerated the online sector in consoles that has brought us great things from Sony and Nintendo (WiiWare and Home and PSN, etc.), they're trying to make indy gaming development a more streamlined process (there's a whole bunch of arguments to be had on this topic, I know.), their integration with Windows and the Zune *should* bring new things to the table (who knows whether it will). I'm not discrediting Sony or Nintendo of any of their innovations. All 3 have done a great job of expanding what "Gaming" is in the last few years. I'm just trying to shed some light on what you see as Microsoft's lack of "benefit[-ting] the gamer".
To answer the OP's question, the only gaming oriented company I dislike is Activision. Despite EA being hated by many, I really think they've made great changes. Not only through Dead Space and Mirror's Edge, but also by supporting their other games through frequent updates and new add-ons (Burnout Paradise, the reinvention of Fifa and NHL 09, etc.). Activision on the other hand... I could go on for a few more essays so I'll stop here. lol
Sorry for the wall of text. I just wanted to play "devil's advocate" for a bit.
