J_Allard said:
Maybe you're just talking Live in general like the store and interface. I don't know of a single person who uses those points as justification in paying for Live Gold, especially considering you can still buy all the stuff and browse the store and use the interface without paying a cent for Gold. We can just agree to disagree. You can argue the superior aspects of Live are make believe illusions experienced by gamers while hopped up on exciting colors and crisp design, I will continue to claim that years of owning both consoles and buying virtually every multiplatform title I own on both consoles and playing them online has taught me that the superior aspects are very much real. |
Thats the point, most don't THINK consciously about it. Its something in the back of the mind that influences people and anyone who does marketing and public relations and art knows this. It works through the senses and emotions, not through practicality. If practicality was key PSN's layout would be seen as a good thing. Its not the whole justification, but a major influencing factor. So tell me something, if Sony matched all the features 100% to Xbox Live on a concrete level and left the design the same, what else would you have to argue? Design influences perception. The Look of things influences value in every area of western culture. Microsoft ALWAYS changes design even if they leave the features behind on every anticipated update to Xbox Live. It gives the perception that you are dealing with a premier brand even though you share 95% of your features with the competition.
When people see Xbox Live updates they accept the new updates even with criticism, but what gets critiqued the most is the design. People can actually catalogue through this whole gen for their favorite version of Xbox Live Layouts. Microsoft has a marketing > product mentality. Sony has the opposite which is product > marketing, which is why they tend to have slower sales than Microsoft. Does this make a shred of sense to you?
