| attaboy said: Dude. Payed online: This was available before Microsoft was on the Market. Look up SegaNet for the Dreamcast. Or the Sega Channel. There were also unofficial online options for the N64 (sharkwire) and SNES/Genesis (can't remember their name). Sony was the only one that didn't charge for online and compared to the original Xbox, it was easily subpar. Even the PS3's online was initially a shell of what Xbox 360 offered. The reason Sony didn't charge was because they needed to have that advantage over the 360. The PS3 cost Sony billions as they did price cuts, gave away free games, free online--whatever they could do to lure gamers from the surprise success of the 360. Most didn't think the 360 would last nearly as long as it did or sell as much as it did. Meanwhile Sony was saying "The first million will buy a PS3 with NO GAMES" or "Gamers can get a second job to buy a PS3". Pushing a gen before the market was ready: The market was ready. Just like it's ready now. Just like it was ready when the Genesis launched at the height of the Nes or when the Dreamcast launched when the PS1 was ruling the world. Gamers were ready for more impressive games. If we weren't, the 360 would have crashed and burned like CDi, 3DO, Neo Geo, or any number of overpowered, over-priced consoles that failed because it wasn't time. Season Passes/Online Passes: I'm pretty sure that was a third party thing to combat used game sales. You're blaming Microsoft for something they didn't originate. And you're blaming them for something they almost did. They didn't do that digital only thing--which, if you can remember, was something already done by Sega on the Dreamcast with Phantasy Star Online. It was a retail disc that could only be used once. Again, not something Microsoft started and also something Sony was rumored to be doing since before the PS2 and PS3 (but they didn't go through with it). I'll post links but I have to go in about fifteen mins. I WILL post them before tomorrow night, though. Shooter only market: You're blaming them for making one good game in a genre. They made Halo. That's it. Why are you blaming them for making a successful FPS? Are you blaming ID for Wolfenstein or Quake? Are you blaming Rare for N64's Goldeneye? Infinity Ward for Call of Duty or whomever made Counterstrike? Whe I got my PS2, Red Factio (an FPS) was the game to own. Before that, it was Time Splitters. In the 80's/90's, platformers dominated. Before that, every other game was a Gradius styled space shooter. Why single out Microsoft for a genre that gamers apparently want to play? Do like me. Play a variety. I don't play Madden but I don't have animosity for those that do. I just ignore them as long as I still get the games I want to play.
I think you're blaming Microsoft for everything when the real culprit here is Obamacare. |
I played online on the dreamcast for free. I'm not sure what you're trying to say there.
If the market was ready, why did so many companies bankrupt? If the market is ready for next-gen why are all 3rd party games multi-platform with current gen? The risks are astronomically high.
PSO was required to be on the console for you to play the game. Again im confused. Did you play PSO on the DC? I sold my used PSO copies. I'm sure its possible for other people to play them if they create a new account. At least here in europe.
The shooter only market was something ushered in by microsoft but they arent the only ones responsible. The main problem is they rushed the generation, especially in the US market and those are the only titles that sell really well. Given the risk it forced many publishers to just make lots of them to survive. Today, we find most genres are financial risks and just get scrapped in favor of more FPS's and TPS. I dunno about you, but i cant tell you how sick i am of shooting stuff.
