Sony doesn't have to give a shit about us personally, but they obviously respect consumers and so do Nintendo. Microsoft just learned how to..thats all.

So, M$ now respects consumers?  I thnik that almost all LARGE corporations respect consumers.  That is how they make their $$$.  M$ just proved it by their 180.  They didn't force force their plan down your throat, the system hasn't been released yet for you or any other person to have been disrespected yet.  They announced their plan and when it went to shit, they responded to their customers and changed the plan.

all it proves is that Microsoft made a dumb mistake and they paid the price by having to compromise everything that was special. they had no respect for their consumers, and they got it where it hurt, right in the bank.

As for Sony, I don't think they HAVE a vision for the future. They've said on multiple occasions that their model for console manufacture is, "if you build it, they will come", and it's been like that since the PS1 days. Realistically, what have they ever innovated? I can't think of a single thing off the top of my head that Sony did first that was significant. They adopted motion controls second, they adopted online play second, they adopted portable connectivity second, they adopted backwards compatibility second, etc. all the major gaming innovations have been made by other companies. I mean, I like the general direction Sony goes and I don't see a whole lot of questionable business practices or anti-consumer garbage with them, but I don't think they have any vision, they just kinda go with the flow.

for example, take the PS4. it was supposed to have 4 gigs of Ram at one point, but doubled it to 8 because of developers who practically demanded it. They are now charging for online play, which is something Microsoft did first and was very successful with. The price is 399 because they chopped off the PS Eye, even though it was CLEAR that they wanted to include it with the system at launch, but they were so dedicated to beating Microsoft that they were forced to give gamers the OPTION to have the eye.

As I said, Sony has no vision, not like Nintendo. I mean, they do what they do very well, but it's no more vision than anyone else. Hell, I'd argue MICROSOFT has more vision than Sony, problem is, their vision is muddy and bloodshot. Sony just kinda goes the simplest path and makes it better.

They may not be the most innovative company out there, but they're definitely progressing the medium in the right direction.  How can you possibly be so blind, dense, and frankly fanboyish?  You have a Master Chief avatar while blindly yelling "PS4 IS JUST PS3.5" even though most console generations have been precisely what the PS3-PS4 leap has been: a raw jump in power.  

Other than there being a few more buttons, what is the significant difference between the NES And the SNES?  

What is the significant change between the PS1 and PS2?  

Nintendo 64 and gamecube?  

Genesis and Sega CD? 

Xbox and Xbox 360?  

The only significant changes in gaming since the mid 80's has been the addition of analog sticks and 3D gameplay (N64/PS1), Online Play (Xbox, PC, 360, PS3), and motion controls (Wii, Kinect).  I wouldn't even argue the WiiU is in any way innovative.  the game pad is nice, but it's really not that much of an innovation since you can do the same thing on the Wii connected to a DS.  hell, the WiiU even uses Wiimotes! 

@runa216 PS eyetoy, they didnt adopt anything 2nd when it came to motion controls and was their another system prior to PS2 that had backwards compatbility?

Motion has been around for a long time, just not GOOD motion. 

Game Boy Advance/Color.  Atari was backwards compatible.  

I fully agree about going head to head.  Look at all the advantages 360 had (most notably the killer combo of $200 price difference and a full year head start on the competition) and it's still ending up behind PS3.  I know people will cite profitability but that has no effect on mindshare or marketshare.  Sony spent a lot in R&D and the average consumer doesn't know about financials.  The PS3 selling more despite these disadvantages shows that people just want Playstation and its exclusives more.

But gamers, at least console gamers, have spoken. They don't WANT that. Gamers want choice. They want the choice to own their games physically. Innovation is a term used way too often and broadly these days. Innovation means doing things in a new way but, if it's not improving upon the old way, what good is it? Online checks and no used games do NOT improve anything. That's not innovation anyone should want or brag about.

As much as you just you want to deny it Microsoft had to humble themselves. The consumer spoke and they were fighting it for a little but eventually the broke and pulled the 180, which shows they have some sort of respect for the consumerbase now. If they want to get paid you have to respect the consumer. Has the consumer just said nothing and just taken what Microsoft had done Microsoft would've been fucked from the start. They needed our responses as much as some deny it.

You know, this SOUNDS like a terribly biased, fanboy stance, but what you say is true.  Despite all the issues the PS3 had out the gate, it still ended up winning out over the Xbox 360  in the eyes of gamers worldwide.  Though, to be fair, a lot of that issue is that the Xbox is really only super popular in America, whereas the PS3 was a worldwide console that sold everywhere.  if you're going strictly by america (the #1 consumer of videogames, the largest market), then Xbox kicked Playstation's ass.  

I imagine the Xbox One will actually beat PS4 in America, but it'll be a much more level playing field this time around.  I also honestly think the only reason such a thing would happen would because of national pride.  American products tend to do better in America, that's just a fact.  

To be entirely honest, I'm not like most 'fanboys' out there who want their 'rival' company to fail.  I like Sony the best of the three companies, I won't lie (and I am thoroughly disappointed in Microsoft), but that doesn't mean I want other companies to fail.  to me, the ideal gaming scenario between the three companies would be as follows:  All three are profitable by targeting different audiences.  Nintendo has always will and should continue to target families, Microsoft should stick to the shooter/racer/sports frat boy crowd, and Sony should be the all-around winner again, jsut like it was this generation.  I want to see Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo all prosper while targeting their own demographic.