A forum poll is not a "study".
Do you still trust MS enough to get their Next Console? | |||
Yes | 265 | 34.06% | |
No | 512 | 65.81% | |
Total: | 777 |
I agree with you about:
-Charging for online (but let's be honest, it was leagues ahead of its time and somewhat justifiable upon release as a result)
-RROD, but replaced the units for free so I don't see this as an issue moving forward. (Maybe hurt the launch a bit *just in case*)
- Lack of wireless and hdmi. (Not acceptable)
It's about the total package for you, that much is obvious. Although I'm not sure if this an ex post facto realization or simply a very late grievance. Either way, decent gripes, but the average consumer overlooks the simple things quite easily.
Im surprised gamers gave Sony a chance when any other brand name would have crumbled due to the initial mistakes.
I could make my own elaborate lists, but at least I know that I can't convince the opposite team, just ruffle feathers and prove that the other side has merit.
Sincerely, i dont know who could trust Msoft at all to begin with, still i think if someone is going to trust Msoft, NOW is the best time to do so, with Sony losing touch with the industry at giant step and Nintendo strugglin to please everyone in the whole mfukin world
forevercloud3000 said: Microsoft did a great job lulling many a gamer in with what they originally offered. Yet, for the last 7 Years I have watched them pull one slick stunt after the next, and generally harm the sanctity of the industry multiple times over.
PS2 was the market leader, no wonder they lasted as long as they did......PS2 choked the life and potential out of the allready money-losing Xbox. Xbox was graphically superior, had a hard drive, online blew what was called PS2 "online" out of the water. In the end, it came down to sales, how PS2 had a monopoly.
MS has few f1st party studios.....what do you expect them to do? Timed exclusivity made 360 gamers feel superior that they got first pick. When it came to PS3, they got the sloppy second sales scraps. As a 360 gamer, I was all to happy to let them have Bioshock of ME 2, because I allready had my fill, and they would get it after most gamers allready moved on. Your underlined couldn't be further away from reality. PS3 multipalts usually outsell your exclusives in the same genre. Check the top 10 PS3 best sellers......ya.
3rd party brings games to 360 whether you accept it or not. 360 had its main IPS like Gears, Forza, and especially Halo 4 in recent years. XBLA has been excellent every year as well. Sure, more would have been nice, but thats because MS doesn't have the studio numbers. They have been acquiring a lot now, so their multiple studios should start diversifying next gen. 360 doesnt have mainland Europe and Japan to use as a crutch like Sony has. Going casual was the only way to reinvigorate 360 sales. You take Sonys inherent luxuries like more studios and more "global" appeal for granted. It makes them lazy, where as MS has to do things to stay current, with less territories working in their favor.
Live is faster, more seamless, and more friend oriented. This applies to all online, not just online MP. 360 exclusives like Halo alone make the price justified as I can argue that aside from GT, Uncharted, and GOW, PS3 exclusives aren't really enticing. You dont like paying, cool. But millions do, and it doesnt change that Live is just better. The gap is smaller, but still there.
2005 called, it wants your opinion back. But seriously, Dualshock 3....forcing gamers to upgrade from Sixaxis? Nah that aside MS was just giving options. I know I used ethernet when I had my 360 Elite. Rechargable controller pack was $30, no biggie. Hey, if your concerned about money, then drop gaming all together as the whole hobby is a money pit. Someone Please explain to me, after knowing all this, how could MS's efforts be more appealing than Sony or Nintendo's at this point?
Because I think XBLA is the best console digital service, more media oriented then PS3 (gasp I have uses for non gaming apps, the nerve!!!), its multiplats are all better due to Live, timed exclusivity/DLC gives me first pick over you, and 360s exclusives, while fewer, are way more desirable then most of Sonys 1st party catalogue. Live costs money, but its superior, bottom line. Thats my view, hope that sheds some lgiht.
|
DieAppleDie said: Sincerely, i dont know who could trust Msoft at all to begin with, still i think if someone is going to trust Msoft, NOW is the best time to do so, with Sony losing touch with the industry at giant step and Nintendo strugglin to please everyone in the whole mfukin world |
What gave you that idea?
Before the PS3 everyone was nice to me :(
OP BEING SONY FAN CANT SEE FAULTS IN OWN SYSTEM
"I think people should define the word crap" - Kirby007
Join the Prediction League http://www.vgchartz.com/predictions
Instead of seeking to convince others, we can be open to changing our own minds, and seek out information that contradicts our own steadfast point of view. Maybe it’ll turn out that those who disagree with you actually have a solid grasp of the facts. There’s a slight possibility that, after all, you’re the one who’s wrong.
Pretty much the only thing keeping me with the Xbox right now is the fact that my friends are on it. If i can convince them to get a PS4 next generation, and assuming PSN fixes some of its issues, and gets party chat? i'll have no problem completely abandoning Xbox. Right now i'd rather pay for Plus than Live gold, because Plus actually gives you something back.
Microsoft doesn't care about games. They're only here to do what they always do try to monopolize. That won't work in this industry though. Their actions have proven they don't care about the games. Not only their PR blabbing about how they don't need exclusives and bringing up their awesome multiplatform games that can be purchased on another platform. They bought out Rare and did nothing with them, killed of Kameo 2 and forced them into Kinect slave labor. They didn't even purchase Bioware for christ sakes. Had that been Sony, Bioware would have been snatched right up. But i guess if a game doesn't sell 5 or 8 million each installment Microsoft doesn't care about it.
Hell IMO Rare would have been better off with Sony. Even Fable could have turned out better than it did if Lionhead was under Sony. Sony's devs actually work together, and Lionhead could have had help from other Sony devs and Fable could have turned out much better than the shit that was Fable 2 & 3.
LOL at Sony being the cuddly, passionate, gamer friendly company, and MS being evil.
They are both BIG, GIANT, SOULLESS, MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS! You honestly don't think Sony is here "to monopolize"?
Naturally, the people working for them are hired because of passion, but ultimately, the goal is to make money.
I honestly think that Sony fanboys are the worst this generation because they have had to be on the defensive for all of this generation because of price issues, multiplatform inferiority issues, controller issues (sixaxis), lack of games issues (not anymore), inferior online, and sales.
Sure, the PS3 will probably catch up later this year, but it will still be across 3 regions to the 360's 2, and they have sold 100 million fewer games because a lot of people bought the PS3 to use as primarily a bluray player or as a secondary system.