| BMaker11 said: So, was it not true that the 360 had a "fake" cheaper price? You either had to replace standard batteries over and over or get a play and charge kit. You had to get XBL to play online. HDDs became a necessity and 20GB just weren't cutting the mustard, so you needed bigger ones....but they were proprietary and cost $100+ instead of a replaceable SATA for less than half the cost for the same amount of storage. I paid $400 for a PS3 in 2007. If you got a 360 at the same time, you paid, bare minimum, $300 for the core model, $100 for the HDD, $50 for XBL, either an uncountable amount of money (not because it was astronomically high, but there's no solid figure on it) on batteries or $30 for the play and charge kit, and if your router was in a different side of the house, you needed wireless to get online, and that peripheral cost $100. So the "real" entry price for a 360 was at least $400 at the minimum for just a Core and an HDD and one set of batteries worth of playing. But up to $480 to actually enjoy the console and as high as $580 if your Xbox wasn't close enough to your router and you needed to use WiFi. Is it not true that the 360 was able to be cheap (other than literally being cheap, hence why the hardware failures were so prevalent) because it didn't standardize HDDs and have a next-gen media interface, which is now standard across the board? Is it not true that MSs 1st party support has been pretty paltry throught that generation? Other than Gears, Halo, Fable, and Forza, what else was notable? The last 3 years have been a majority of Kinect games. Is it not true that MS spent more on ads instead of building studios? Moreover, is it not true that they spent a crap ton of money focusing on getting multiplatform content on the console for a short period of time instead of making fully exclusive IPs? Was it really that important to throw millions of dollars at Activision to get a "Jump In" at the end of a CoD commercial, only to get a few percent higher sales overall? Was it really so important to give Take Two $50M to make people think 360 was the "home" of GTA4, when PS3 got the content anyway and GTAIV sold essentially the same on both consoles? Did MS not just axe a new IP in order to rehash Gears...by an untested studio? And is it not true that they rushed the console to the market in order to beat Sony out the gate, ignoring the need to do final QA testing on the system in order to get a few million in consumer's hands first....resulting in one of the largest, if not *the* largest, hardware failures of all time? Preying on reader's ignorance? What could the readers of this article look up to "debunk" many or all of these points? The post may seem "angry" or "bitter", but each point was valid The Xbox 360 was like Spirit Airlines (maybe you've heard of them): they're advertised as the "cheapest way to fly" because you only "pay for what you need". In this case, flying from Point A to Point B (popping a disc into the tray and playing a game). But if you need to have some bags brought onto the flight, they charge you crazy fees for it. If you want a seat that's not necessarily 1st class, but better than the crappy ones in the back of the plane, you pay a fee. They only go to a select few destinations, and if you have a layover instead of a direct flight, the price skyrockets. They just nickel and dime you repeatedly. All of this is comparable to XBL, HDDs, batteries, etc. for 360. If you just wanted a better experience with no hiccups, why not just fly Delta or Southwest (get a PS3, or PS4 now)? Their tickets may be a little higher, but in the end, everything is cheaper than what you get from Spirit, to get an enjoyable flight experience. |
Everything you said was fine imo, but the last paragraph was unnecessary. Was an entertaining read.
