indeed... but if someone stands by its opinion and argument its way trough a discussion in a gaming forum can always get that label in the mind or in a reply by the other end... so i wanted to clear that up... you don't need to take my word on it... my knowledge about MS business model and the role that consumers play in that business model could be wrong and could be right, only MS really knows how they see us gamers, the OP ask a opinion, and i give mine, the best i could with the knowledge i have and with my personal perspective about some examples given by MS itself.

the problem is that i don't really consider that a service... they let me connect to servers that most of the time have 3rd party SW running? i am sorry but i pay my ISP to give me that service. the other features could be premium and lots of people would subscribe it, but on-line gaming IMO should be free and if someone has to get money from that should be the SW developers because the server you use to play their game is running their SW, not MS SW.

in my view the price cut that happened in 2007 says that, the cost for production decreased, and yes, sony wasn't happy with the sales, and yes, the majority didn't share sony's view on what a console is and how much it should cost. sony was wrong in their projection and hopes, yes. that makes them care less about consumers? not really if the high price was a consequence of them trying to deliver the higher performance in the gen... more power and quality cost more money. MS had a similar product for cheaper price, i get that, but the in detail, taking XBL fee in to account made me chose the PS3. i saw the value in it. for me it proved the value. for the majority it didn't, and that make you right in your argument, but don't invalidate mine! but did invalidate the argument used by others that only hardcore sony fans bought it at 600$.

LOL... that made me laught!

good argument... didn't think of that...

nice one!

If both consoles sold at the same time there wouldn't be an argument about who is selling better. The PS3 is just playing catch up because they've sold more consoles in the time they've been around being its sixth year and the 360 on its seventh. Three major things the PS3 needs to overcome:

1. 360's value as a console (hardware, library, online etc)....which is well spoken for with its sales last year. 

2. The hardest thing to beat which is the Kinect effect, not the 360 itself.

3. Microsoft marketing, which only shines light on a handful of games. Sony has too many games to make commercials for, so they need to reinvest.

Number one has been done. The other two are of little substance but are the largest causes of high sales.

Sony cares more about the money and their business being successful then anything else in the world. The customer is probably #15 on a top 20 list of things Sony cares about. Sony won't bend over backwards for their customer unless it will benefit them and make them look good and the public eye. Hence the first games they gave away during the PSN outage. Why did Sony do this for gamers? Because the world was watching and it the end it shines them in the positive light. If the outage didn't go global all over the world and was strictly internal, Sony wouldn't have offered anything except maybe a free month of PS+.

I believe Sony does care, however, I believe Microsoft knew they had to round up the third parties to have a more inviting selection of games. This will overshadow  what they truly lack, which is true first and second party games. The majority of their exclusives were never untouchable, so why not have a larger library to mask that fact infront of the masses? Do you know how many people actually believe COD is exclusive to the 360 because of their marketing? LOL I've met a ton.

Allow? lol!! Last I checked Sony didn't own Namco, Capcom or SquareEnix. Sony didn't allow anything. The reason those games were released on other platforms was because those companies saw an audience there and felt they could profit from it. These companies wanted a lot more money from Sony to keep them exclusive to the Playstation platform. Sony didn't have that kind of money after having 4 months of quarterly loses. Sony has enough in house exsclusives anyways, so I'm sure they didn't see it as a major problem.

Also, you contradicted yourself. You say that Sony doesn't care about XBox gamers. Then you said that Sony cares about gamers who left Playstation and became XBox gamers. lol!! What!?! Let me make it easy for you. Sony don't care about ANY gamers. They care about MONEY and PROFITS.

Sony offers free TV Shows, Qore after two month, a monthly gaming preview, Demos and free online. The free month of PSN Plus was only the half of it, they gave me InFamous  (which caused me to buy InFamous 2) and Dead Nation (which i had fun with friends on). Regardless of their reasons they've given me more than Microsoft ever has. The first thing to give thanks to is that they and Nintendo havent become dicks and tried to stop free online gaming. Microsoft doesn't have dedicated servers on Live and I dont know why they dont just separate the premium content from that which you already pay for which is your online connection. Microsoft makes dick moves and gets more press. Sony and Nintendo are thinking about how to push the gaming industry forward. The only thing Microsoft can come up with is online. Luckily the PC gamers havent bought any of what Microsoft has thrown at them with Live. I'm hearing they will try again....get ready for a second failure.

You know the PS1 and PS2 were the cheapest and least powerful consoles during their generations, and depended heavily on third party support. Back during those days Nintendo produced significantly more first party titles, excellent ones too like Zelda and Mario.

Sony only started working harder this gen because their video game market share dropped. PS2 was 75% of the console market, and now PS3 is only about 35%.

Sony wants to sell the most expensive product they can now, this is why Vita was the same price as 3DS when they announced it (I really think Nintendo tricked Sony with this market strategy to put the PSV in an expensive bracket).

I think Nintendo cares the most about their gamers. Have you ever had a Nintendo console or controller break on you? My PS1 AND PS2 are both broken, and I think my 360 had to be replaced (under warranty, but still a hassle) 4 times before they finally sent me an HDMI model. Nintendo might not be localizing a few JRPG's and might not have as many first party studios as Sony, but they are a 2 billion dollar corporation vs. a 30 billion dollar one. Nintendo simply doesn't have as much resources, but they are doing better with what they have.

Nintendo cares the most, it shows with friend codes (a system which actually protects young gamers from cursing adults), console reliability, consistent game quality, competitive prices and even their club Nintendo service (which awards you with free games if you complete a survey for each game you buy).

You can argue that Sony supports their console more, but when was the last time PSP got a good third party exclusive? All Sony does is support consoles more and Nintendo supports the handhelds more. When was the last time you saw a $100 Sony system? PS2's sold for $140 well into this generation, where Nintendo slashed the price of their Gamecube and GBA (which was also a successful console) when they reached their end of life, but I don't feel Sony is doing the same for their PSP, and I don't see PS3 coming down in price that much.

The last time I can think of the PS3 getting a great third party game was Metal Gear Solid: Peace Walker. Their first party really shined though with God of War: Ghost of Sparta. The Vita will allow them to make more casual games and core titles. That is, if the Vita launches properly.