| slowmo said:
Not getting involved discussing a member who is banned, it's not really good etiquette but as for the bolded: The simple fact is Sony aimed for the same release date Micrsoft did and missed it by a country mile (for a number of reasons) while Micrsoft having spent a lot of money and effort to hit that date decided they would go ahead and gamble on the hardware knowing they could fix any possible issue in future hardware spins. It was the right corporate decision but in hindsight poor customer service. |
@underlined. I couldn't care less, and I don't see the reason for the etiquette, so again not my problem. I'm just continuing the argument he can't continue because I agree with him. He'll be proud of me on his return, since he and I usually disagree.
@bold. Nobody said they didn't spend alot of money to hit that date. We understand that. It doesn't change the argument this far in the slightest.
@italics. That's your justification?? That's exactly the issue. They didn't QA it adequately enough so this didn't have to happen. It's one thing for you to say they didn't expect the failure rate they had, it's another to haze it out with your usual minor failure rate that can be fixed post-launch.
@underlined. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Your word against mine, I think it was a poor corporate decision, and we all here are pretty damn quite knowledgeable in video game business strategy. I suggested many altrenatives to Chris Hu already, take a look.
