It's not like MS is making you pay for it you have a choice of whether or not you want Xbox Live Gold and the extra features you get in doing so. If online was free in Silver then i wouldn't pay for gold either.

Thats the point. Microsoft knows the online multiplayer is what everyone wants, so then rather than finding an alternative value for a "premium service" which isnt premium at all, they lock you out of your multiplayer gaming and offer you services that people already pay for that they could watch else where in higher resolution. Most of the must have exclusives (three games specificially) on the 360 are multiplayer heavy games, so Microsoft knows that if you want them you must pay.

Sony is smaller than Mitsubishi, HP and Samsung, at least. But it is a big producer of optical drives (and in the past it was even bigger, compared to competitors), and what's more, it obviously expected Blu Ray to take off faster and stronger, so a small share of royalties from a huge market would have meant a far larger sum than what it actually ended up gathering. But there were other reasons too: the implementation of interactive contents of Blu Ray are based on a Java dialect, BD-J, while the most used implementation of HD-DVD interactive contents is HDi, owned by MS. Sony and other entertainment producers members of BDA weren't happy to give MS more power in the entertainment industry, so they kept on supporting Blu Ray, and an attempt of agreement between the two consortia to merge the two competing formats failed also because they couldn't agree on the BD-J vs. HDi dispute.

Live has these too but on PSN and Live they are retail games that take up tons of HDD space and take a long time to download (particularly on PSN). I am talking XBLA/PSN games. For example if I look at the last 25 releases on PSN, only a paltry 3 of them have any sort of demo I can try out. If I go onto XBLA, all 25 of the last 25 have trials. Even games that are also on PSN. Which leads me to wonder, since MS requires them to make a trial version and they do the work and make one, why not also on PSN? Can't be too hard to carry the work over. The only conclusion I can come up with is publishers not wanting to pay the bandwidth fees on PSN, which are waived on XBLA.

You could make the exact same argument for retail games regarding sharing a majority of them. But XBLA slaughters PSN in amount of exclusive great downloadable games. Probably why you discount them as something to boast about. Something tells me if Sony were doing a better job on PSN, you wouldn't be so quick to dismiss XBLA.

I have both consoles and Xbox 360 fanatics were the ones boasting XBLA because of the fact that the retail games were lacking on the 360. Sony makes downloadable games too, but no one cared to argue it because unlike the 360 since 2008 (the end of the 360's major exclusive run) Sony took over in 2009 and PS3 owners got to enjoy a more than healthy dose of games made by Sony or their partners. It's still going on today and has not stopped. Even when Microsofts first party was putting out games they were never that relentless. XBLA and PSN have their games, and I appreciate them as online factors and yes Microsoft has always had more of them. XBLA wasn't that great this year though, but yeah if you enjoyed it more power to you. PSN is never flourishing with amazing downloadables because that isnt Sonys focus. Microsoft focuses on the low budget because their game development isnt like Sonys. They focus on less than a handful of games and they admited its because of the costs. I dont think its a cost issue, but a creativity one, but good luck to them next gen.

Retail games aren't lacking on 360 though. And I question how much you use your 360 if you didn't even know all XBLA games have demos. Either way you're a huge Sony apologist, that was the point regarding the comment about dismissing XBLA.

Actually, no, I am not a Sony apologist and I used to bash Sony for not making enough games when I first joined. When I got my PS3 it was a huge paradigm shift because there were much more games in 2009 than I thought that were out, they were just new IP's that werent marketed properly. Microsofts exclusives new IP's were never up to snuff unless they were being created by the top third party and if you dont see the trend here I dont know what to tell you. (1st gen: Bioware, 2nd gen: Epic, third gen: Crytek and...?) Unless third parties are doing a large part of the work for them their they dont continue on but less than a handful of names. I have no loyalty to gaming companies, I focus on the games. Yes, I will get on the case of companies whom are falling behind on game development and I will praise the companies that are doing what true gaming companies should, which is not cut corners and make games.

"Xbox 360 fanatics were the ones boasting XBLA because of the fact that the retail games were lacking on the 360."

I didn't know a fact could be something untrue. The 360 was never lacking in quality retail games. Perhaps... this is just an opinion?

"because unlike the 360 since 2008 (the end of the 360's major exclusive run) Sony took over in 2009 and PS3 owners got to enjoy a more than healthy dose of games made by Sony or their partners. It's still going on today and has not stopped."

A lot of saw the PS3's 2009 line up as a healthy dose of mediocrity. The only noteworthy title PS3 had in 2009 was Uncharted 2. Killzone 2 was a let down and that's why Killzone 3 saw a decline in sales. Infamous is another game that saw a decline in sales because the first game wasn't great either.

That same year the 360 had Forza 3, Halo ODST, Halo Wars, and Left 4 Dead 2. Many of us feel those were stronger games. This is subjective.

"XBLA wasn't that great this year though, but yeah if you enjoyed it more power to you. PSN is never flourishing with amazing downloadables because that isnt Sonys focus."

What is Sony's focus? They don't put out many noteworthy games on PSN and many of their retail games aren't doing well. Lets look at 2011. Just about everything Move related flopped, Socom 4 flopped, Motor Storm Apocalypse flopped. A few titles like Killzone 3, Resistance 3, LBP 2, and Infamous 2 did okay or well, but they all saw a decline in sales over previous games. I'd argue because they weren't very good. The only geninely great game I felt that year was Uncharted 3.

Now lets look at Sony for 2012. Once again, everything Move related is a flop. Starhawk is a massive flop. Twisted Metal is a flop. LBPK is gonna see modest sales. Playstation All Stars won't be a big hit either. Uhmmmm... this was a shitty year for PS3 exclusives actually. Kinda explains why they put out so many collections. Even their Vita lineup has been disappointing.

So yeah, Sony's focus... maybe 2013 is their focus?

"They focus on less than a handful of games and they admited its because of the costs. I dont think its a cost issue, but a creativity one, but good luck to them next gen."

Based on how shitty a lot of their software has been doing, safe bet Sony is gonna focus on less games as well. 2012 was a sign of that.

"Microsofts exclusives new IP's were never up to snuff unless they were being created by the top third party and if you dont see the trend here I dont know what to tell you."

Subjective. Because not all of us are as impressed with Sony's 1st titles as you. Its silly to say games like Halo 4, Forza, and Fable aren't "up to snuff." Great titles developed by MS's 1st party studio. Sony has also relied heavily on 3rd parties and sometimes buys the studios that actually make hits. I guess your gripe is MS isn't buying more studios?

"Yes, I will get on the case of companies whom are falling behind on game development and I will praise the companies that are doing what true gaming companies should, which is not cut corners and make games."

I guess no praise for Sony this year.