Reasonable said:
I'm not talking about Sony hence have no reason to mention them - other than the overly silly reason to seem 'fair' when I don't need to. I'm refering to a comment on MS pointing out they were clearly far from squeakly clean in their actions in this specific case. The generic mention of how this is standard in corportate business not only covers Sony but others. I don't believe in the approach that says if I'm speaking about MS specifically I have to mention Sony too, or I have to mention Nintendo. Sure Sony have played plenty of 'angles' too - I have never heard of a major business who has not. However, when responding to a comment clearly saying MS had no ulterior motive I can respond without having to say that Sony have also made decisions with ulterior motives.
|
Corporate competition in general is nothing like the combined nastyness of technology companies. Console companies can be considered near the top of that scale because they will go as far as harming their own interests in order to harm other companies and promote their own agenda. The whole console business is insipid, and I don;t believe anyone should mention one specifically as malicious without mentioning the other two to get the point across and maintain that they are all malicious.
Tease.







