C0LINx 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?
|
What has been so different about XBOX Live in the past 2 years? I'll wait till I see the 720 and its new features before making a full judgement on whether their online infastructure has improved upon the already great XBOX Live. Your first point pretty much reiterated what I said.
|
My point there wasn't that they've changed that much specifically in the last two years, but simply about why they shouldn't quit. If they quit, Sony doesn't need to try anymore. They can release a $600 console with no good games, and it still gets to be a success...
This generation, they did that and it was a disaster, so they redoubled their efforts and thus things got better for gamers. Would they have needed to try so hard if MS wasn't in the business? Nope. That's my only point. You don't need to constantly innovate to be worthwhile.
Aside from which, every new addition this generation (except movement based controls) has been MS first, and Sony following - if anything, this logic suggests it's Sony that should change businesses.
