Jereel Hunter said:
mutantclown said:
Jereel Hunter said:
C0LINx said:
I think so, I mean they really are changing the console business for the worse. We are forgetting what these machines were truly made for. What has Microsoft truly offered to gaming over the past few years? The only thing I could honestly say is a decent online service which one day will be matched by a competitor(Sony). |
1) MS is the reason we have the online console capabilities we have today. Their continuing to move Live forward has forced Sony to match suit.
2) Microsoft's boldy acquiring partners has also forced Sony to follow suit. If Xbox live hadn't gotten Netflix, Hulu, HBOGO, etc type apps, do you think Sony would have? The consoles would not be the media hubs (to the same extent) that they are today.
3) If the 360 wasn't a cheaper, comparable alternative to the PS3, do you think the PS4 would be releasing while the PS3 is still 10 digits in the red, lifetime? Without wanting to one-up MS, we'd be waiting another year or two for a PS4, so Sony could recoup losses.
4) Kinect - maybe there aren't many games we core gamers care about, but there are dance/exercise games that more girls like, lots of ones that entertain kids while being more active than sitting on the couch. And a next generation kinect may even be precise enough to give us games we'll enjoy too.
The fact that Sony has to compete is GEAT for us. What changes from PS1 to PS2? Better graphics. Thats' about it. But with Sony actually having to fight for their position, everything takes a quantum leap forward. Even if you refuse to acknowledge what MS has certainly brought to gaming in the last few years, you have to at least see that it prevents Sony from resting on their laurels. When PS3 released, it was $600, and the advice was to "get a second job" if you can't afford one. Do you really want a company with that mindset to have a virtual monopoly?
|
1. Agree
2. Nah. If PS3 was alone they would have gone for it and Wii as well.
3. Nah. PS4 has been in the cards since 2008. They never stop going forward.
4. Nah.
PSone and PS2 were great without any really fierce competitors, Sony slashed the Price of PS2 to $200 after just 18 months, and then released an even cheaper slim version, and they never stopped making great games, or resting on their laurels milking the same old 3 franchises or focusing on something other than games primarily. I wouldn't mind Sony to take hold of the market again, they proved for 10 years they are very good kings, I would be afraid of Microsoft having a monopoly in the consoles market, that would be scary.
|
2) Like I said, to the same extent. A lot of these services don't bring profit - they are SIMPLY a feature. And quite franky, Netflix, HBO Go, Amazon, etc, all directly compete with their own online viewing offerings. If they didn't have competition, they wouldn't offer them at all. Competitiion forces it.
3) I'm not saying PS4 wouldn't come, but not yet. If you think it would, well what can I say - that's incorrect. The PS3 has still not made profit over it's lifetime, overall. Why would they release the next system if they could run away with the generation uncontested like in the PS1/2 years?
4) 15 million kinect sales would disagree. You can say "Nah", but it's neither a valid argument, nor does it invalidate the statement.
|
