forevercloud3000 said:
Microsoft did a great job lulling many a gamer in with what they originally offered. Yet, for the last 7 Years I have watched them pull one slick stunt after the next, and generally harm the sanctity of the industry multiple times over.
- When the Original Xbox came out, I was interested. Games like Fable and Jade Empire almost had me. Yet I already had a PS2, wth FF and a hefty load of games that were exclusive to it. I decided I would wait to get the Xbox after it became much cheaper. When the New consoles were finally released I though this was my chance to snag one for a bargain......then it happened. MS officially cut off Xbox shortly after 360's release, this was in complete contrast to how the PS2 still thrived for several years, just like the PS1 did. The way it was immediately discontinued, most ofthe games were field destroyed, just erased....didn't sit well at all with me. I still feel like this is a mantra MS might still hold. More on that later....
PS2 was the market leader, no wonder they lasted as long as they did......PS2 choked the life and potential out of the allready money-losing Xbox. Xbox was graphically superior, had a hard drive, online blew what was called PS2 "online" out of the water. In the end, it came down to sales, how PS2 had a monopoly.
- RROD. MS ignored the many warnings they got from their tech experts to delay the 360's launch so they could figure out a more viable heat syncing solution. MS big wigs could have cared less, because beating Sony to the punch was truly all that mattered. A electronic device with over 40% failure rate that wasn't immediately pulled from market is unheard of. MS's solution to this was to give you a 3 yr warrenty(from LAUNCH and not buy date) where they would fix your console......just so it would break again a month later. In MS's defense, many bring up the PS2's higher than normal failure rate....yet that was small time in comparison really. It was only a rate of like 8%. While working at Gamestop, I watched people buy console after console simply because they kept breaking. When the main reason you chose one console over the next was due to it's low price yet the cost of replacing it comes out to way more.............priceless.
- Timed Exclusivity: A ridiculous trade off from real exclusivity if you ask me. I always felt full exclusive games encouraged the best kind of competition. Mario's success would spur Crash, GT would ignite PGR/Forza, etc, etc. The fact that there are less exclusives these days means there is less reason to buy any particular console(which is what MS wanted) but it also means developers don't have to try nearly as hard to court a fanbase.....and most often, Multiplats feel like a poor man's exclusive Version
MS has few f1st party studios.....what do you expect them to do? Timed exclusivity made 360 gamers feel superior that they got first pick. When it came to PS3, they got the sloppy second sales scraps. As a 360 gamer, I was all to happy to let them have Bioshock of ME 2, because I allready had my fill, and they would get it after most gamers allready moved on. Your underlined couldn't be further away from reality. PS3 multipalts usually outsell your exclusives in the same genre. Check the top 10 PS3 best sellers......ya.
- Total Abandonment of the Hardcore Gamer in the last 3 years. MS has shown time and time again, that their fanbase is just a name and number. They are only as valuable as how much money they are bringing them. Now this isn't news to us about any business. Sony and Nintendo also want your hard earned dollar. Yet MS completely abandoned the groups that gave them their early success as they no longer needed to appeal to them, they already had you (like some douche college stud who sleeps around for the conquest and nothing more). Once they felt they had the "Hardcore Vote" already, the Hardcore centric games became scarce, and the new Casual push began. This is what 360 fans put up with out of complacency for the last 3 years. MS felt as long as they give their fans 2 key franchises a year(an alternation between Forza,Gears, Halo) that their fanbase would stay TAMED.
3rd party brings games to 360 whether you accept it or not. 360 had its main IPS like Gears, Forza, and especially Halo 4 in recent years. XBLA has been excellent every year as well. Sure, more would have been nice, but thats because MS doesn't have the studio numbers. They have been acquiring a lot now, so their multiple studios should start diversifying next gen.
360 doesnt have mainland Europe and Japan to use as a crutch like Sony has. Going casual was the only way to reinvigorate 360 sales. You take Sonys inherent luxuries like more studios and more "global" appeal for granted. It makes them lazy, where as MS has to do things to stay current, with less territories working in their favor.
- Charging for what everyone else give for free. We already pay a premium for the internet, why are you paying for a glorified "Membership" that gives you what you rightfully should of had for free? News Flash people, there is very little XboxLive does that PS3 doesn't, contrary to popular beleif. The only true feature of note is XGC.....an overhyped feature from those who are trying to justify that annual fee. Well come PS4 time, you will no longer have that excuse. Vita already has XGC, PS4 will allow it across multiple devices. PS+ is already garnering far more appeal of late, with its constant sales, free game givaways, auto updates, exclusive betas/demos......on the regular! PS+ isn't required to get basic funtion out of your device, yet people are flocking to it for its REAL value it offers up to you.
Live is faster, more seamless, and more friend oriented. This applies to all online, not just online MP. 360 exclusives like Halo alone make the price justified as I can argue that aside from GT, Uncharted, and GOW, PS3 exclusives aren't really enticing. You dont like paying, cool. But millions do, and it doesnt change that Live is just better. The gap is smaller, but still there.
- Cheap scating to APPEAR cheaper. This baffled me when this gen started. Sure, the PS3 was 600 big ones, but in actuality the 360 was just around, if not more. Think about it. Original 360's were coming with no HDMI port, needed batteries for controllers(expensive rechargeable pack sold seperately), no Wifi Built in (When even the damn Wii did), and of course required a Live Sub to play online. Oh but it came with a headset tho....... The system was built around you buying what appears to be a real bargain in comparison to the competition, then get you on the 50million peripherals that will at some point become a necessity.
2005 called, it wants your opinion back. But seriously, Dualshock 3....forcing gamers to upgrade from Sixaxis? Nah that aside MS was just giving options. I know I used ethernet when I had my 360 Elite. Rechargable controller pack was $30, no biggie. Hey, if your concerned about money, then drop gaming all together as the whole hobby is a money pit.
Someone Please explain to me, after knowing all this, how could MS's efforts be more appealing than Sony or Nintendo's at this point?
Because I think XBLA is the best console digital service, more media oriented then PS3 (gasp I have uses for non gaming apps, the nerve!!!), its multiplats are all better due to Live, timed exclusivity/DLC gives me first pick over you, and 360s exclusives, while fewer, are way more desirable then most of Sonys 1st party catalogue. Live costs money, but its superior, bottom line. Thats my view, hope that sheds some lgiht.
|
