I'll purchase the Nextbox as long as it has the exclusives to support it.

Have't checked to be 100% sure, but it's like shaved down nuts and oats bunched into clusters and they taste incredible.

Rasin Bran Crunch is my favorite cereal.

I have to admit not having WiFi built in is a very cheap shot.

That being said I think Microsoft arn't really that bad. Their PC based architecture has been very good for developers. Which is something Sony and I believe Nintendo are doing now.

However I think Microsoft have dropped the ball now. It looks like their just doing what Sony are doing and hope it works out better.

Microsoft still have one ace in the hole against Sony, which is backwards compatibility, which Sony seems to be having a few problems with for the moment.

Me personally, I still wanted a 360 in the beginning. They had Mass Effect after all which looked totally amazing. I was going to attempt and do what I was GOING to do with the XBOX. But then the mid period with failure Rates, long slow period of the last few years happened, and the previous exclusives that would have enticed me jumped ship.

Regardless of how good any NextBox games look....I just can't see them supporting me as a gamer in the long haul,from just looking at their past. When I purchase games/hardware it is for keeps really. I only shell out cash for things that I feel will last me forever, or long enough till something much much better comes along. I had an Atari, Sega Genesis, PS1, PS2, PS3, and with those I always felt they were "survivors" as far as consoles go.

once again, there was a MOD warning to cut the cereal talk.

The Xbox 360 hardware isn't PC based. The development enviroment is. Say what you will about MS, but their software background helps them immensely as hardware manufacturer. Even with the original Xbox, MS was complemented on the quality of their development tools. Both Nintendo and Sony have had issues providing adequate tools. Judging by the PS4 announcement it seems that Sony has put heavy effort into their development environment. Given what Criterion's said about Most Wanted on WIi U, it seems that Nintendo still has some catching up to do from that standpoint.

Heres what kept me with ms: 5 months in. Rrod. Free replacement. 8 months in, ps3 gets ylod. No free replacement from sony. 2 months later. Xbox gets rrod. Again. Replaced for free.

My xbox got rrod 5x. Replaced and got upgraded to system with hdmi for free. And they gave me gold membership for a year.

Thats part of the reason why i still trust them.

I'm not trying to justify anything, as I respect your opinion. But a friend of mine had 4 ps3; three of them get a ylod. My first xbox got RROD, the second one didn't, and I am still playing. I have the same confidence in my hardware as my friend on his. I seriously doubt that anyone in...ten, fifteen years of gaming has not had a console that ended up breaking and had to buy another. But that does not mean the quality is poor.

Of course this is all subjective.

"When the Original Xbox came out, I was interested. Games like Fable and Jade Empire almost had me. Yet I already had a PS2, wth FF and a hefty load of games that were exclusive to it. I decided I would wait to get the Xbox after it became much cheaper. When the New consoles were finally released I though this was my chance to snag one for a bargain......then it happened. MS officially cut off Xbox shortly after 360's release, this was in complete contrast to how the PS2 still thrived for several years, just like the PS1 did. The way it was immediately discontinued, most ofthe games were field destroyed, just erased....didn't sit well at all with me. I still feel like this is a mantra MS might still hold. More on that later...."

So... did you actually buy an Xbox or not? I don't have a problem with a company shifting away from a console when a new one comes out. They do it with games all the time. It's just part of the business. It's one thing to continue selling a product when its profitable and there is demand for it. The Xbox sold 24,000,000 and MS lost billions on it. There was no reason for them to keep sinking money into it instead of starting fresh with the 360. And this is its 8th year on the market. Which just proves the point, if its profitable and has demand, companies will support it. Lets see what Sony does with the Vita.

"RROD. MS ignored the many warnings they got from their tech experts to delay the 360's launch so they could figure out a more viable heat syncing solution. MS big wigs could have cared less, because beating Sony to the punch was truly all that mattered. A electronic device with over 40% failure rate that wasn't immediately pulled from market is unheard of. MS's solution to this was to give you a 3 yr warrenty(from LAUNCH and not buy date) where they would fix your console......just so it would break again a month later. In MS's defense, many bring up the PS2's higher than normal failure rate....yet that was small time in comparison really. It was only a rate of like 8%. While working at Gamestop, I watched people buy console after console simply because they kept breaking. When the main reason you chose one console over the next was due to it's low price yet the cost of replacing it comes out to way more.............priceless."

Where are you getting this 40% stuff from? I have never seen anything close to that. Industry warranty providers did tests on thousands of units and got a RROD rate nowhere near 40%. There is no denying that the 360 was rushed to the market and suffered some hardware issues as a result. But they're not the only company to have too many hardware issues. MS has the Red Ring of Death. Sony has the Yellow Light of Death. Sony also had the Disc Read Error. And they don't provide extra warranty for either of these issues. However, all I care about is that with the newer chipsets for the last 5-6 years or more, it hasn't been an issue because they fixed it. I also understand that the 360 is successful and profitable, and they milked it for 8 years. This tells me they aren't rushing into next gen this time. I also understand you're at the mercy of manufacturers any time you adopt early. Don't think there won't be speed bumps for both consoles next gen as well for us early adopters.

"Timed Exclusivity: A ridiculous  trade off from real exclusivity if you ask me. I always felt full exclusive games encouraged the best kind of  competition. Mario's success would spur Crash, GT would ignite PGR/Forza, etc, etc. The fact that there are less exclusives these days means there is less reason to buy any particular console(which is what MS wanted) but it also means developers don't have to try nearly as hard to court a fanbase.....and most often, Multiplats feel like a poor man's exclusive Version."

How does MS get the blame for less exclusives nowadays lol. Games are more expensive than ever to make and companies need to maximize the return they get for making them. Furthermore lets not act as if Sony did not secure timed exclusive GTA games last gen. Or timed exclusive content this gen. The days of one console getting tons of 3rd party exclusives are gone. Now publishers are finding new ways to make money. So you get timed exclusive content. Exclusive content in general. Pre-order bonus content. Retailer exclusive content. Publishers and their mismanagement of projects and bloated budgets are more to blame for this than Sony or MS. And there can be plenty of competition whether games are 1st or 3rd party. You're looking at things from a forum console war perspective, not from a reality perspective. When Activision is readying the next Call of Duty, they don't consider Crysis or Battlefield to be less competition than Killzone or Halo just because they are 3rd party games. They're trying to make the best game available no matter what. They're not going to release a half-assed or "poor mans" version of a game just because they don't really have to try hard.

"Total Abandonment of the Hardcore Gamer in the last 3 years. MS has shown time and time again, that their fanbase is just a name and number. They are only as valuable as how much money they are bringing them. Now this isn't news to us about any business. Sony and Nintendo also want your hard earned dollar. Yet MS completely abandoned the groups that gave them their early success as they no longer needed to appeal to them, they already had you (like some douche college stud who sleeps around for the conquest and nothing more). Once they felt they had the "Hardcore Vote" already, the Hardcore centric games became scarce, and the new Casual push began. This is what 360 fans put up with out of complacency for the last 3 years. MS felt as long as they give their fans 2 key franchises a year(an alternation between Forza,Gears, Halo) that their fanbase would stay TAMED."

This is a common opinion among people who don't like MS much and all I wonder when I see opinions like this is hey.. where have you been the last 8 years? MS has always given us Forza and Fable and Halo and Gears. Then they release smaller games here and there, then publish/secure awesome XBLA content you can't play on Sony or Nintendo's consoles, and secure exclusive/timed exclusive content for the multiplatform games. You harp on the last 3 years.. what's been different about this strategy? It's the same, only now they also release a ton of Kinect stuff. There's a conspiracy theory that this has somehow taken their focus off the hardcore gamer, that's simply not true. Also, Nintendo relies on their bread and butter too. And if Sony could find some bread and butter aside from Uncharted, they'd rely on it too. Lord knows they have tried to find their Halo this gen.

"Charging for what everyone else give for free. We already pay a premium for the internet, why are you paying for a glorified "Membership" that gives you what you rightfully should of had for free? News Flash people, there is very little XboxLive does that PS3 doesn't, contrary to popular beleif. The only true feature of note is XGC.....an overhyped feature from those who are trying to justify that annual fee. Well come PS4 time, you will no longer have that excuse. Vita already has XGC, PS4 will allow it across multiple devices. PS+ is already garnering  far more appeal of late, with its constant sales, free game givaways, auto updates, exclusive betas/demos......on the regular! PS+ isn't required to get basic funtion out of your device, yet people are flocking to it for its REAL value it offers up to you."

The only people that hype up cross game chat are people like yourself when you're trying to explain why XBLG is not worth it. This is by far my favorite line that people use when doing this. You never see actual paying customers of XBLG make a huge deal about cross game chat. It's always people who think the service is a rip off pointing to that feature like it's the Holy Grail. Comparing PS+ to XBLG is stupid, one gives you access to an online network, the other is a discount service. Value is subjective. Also, got any links about how it's garnering "far more appeal"? I'd expect detailed timelines of memberships for each service.

"Cheap scating to APPEAR cheaper. This baffled me when this gen started. Sure, the PS3 was 600 big ones, but in actuality the 360 was just around, if not more. Think about it. Original 360's were coming with no HDMI port, needed batteries for controllers(expensive rechargeable pack sold seperately), no Wifi Built in (When even the damn Wii did), and of course required a Live Sub to play online. Oh but it came with a headset tho....... The system was built around you buying what appears to be a real bargain in comparison to the competition, then get you on the 50million peripherals that will at some point become a necessity."

Please explain to use how HDMI, Wifi, or XBLG are each a neccessity. That should be a good read.

MS last gen was all about stealing Sony's breath right from their lungs. By convincing all 3rd Parties to go Multiplat that meant that none of their games could be seen as a reason to buy a PS3, and that if you had a 360 you could still Play them. This also meant that just a few years later Sony would bolster their 1st Party like Nintendo has always done which creates a more static benchmark of success. MS has their gangbusters, they just don't have a plethera of them.

I truly wonder which practice is more lucrative in the long run?

MS

• Get timed exclusivity by paying 500k-1mill= Game sells about 4mill on their console
• 1st Party exclusive where you put in around 20million for development, than another50million in marketing but it sells 10millions