Microsoft clearly

They came from a last place console and thought they can do whatever they want and force their ways onto the people.
Sony at least came from the best selling console of all time and arrogance there would be at least reasonable.

Sony was more arrogant and MS was more stupid.

Whatever!! Still giving Sony a pass because you have someone to blame.  Its like my little daughter telling me its her brother fault because she did something wrong.  Also do you just pick and choose which DRM you accept or is that a blanket statement.

As for the DRM lets take a look at why that was needed during MS reveal.  If the console was going to be pretty much all digital that allowed you to take your digital game and sell, trade, loan etc.  With such a setup, a person could purchase the digital game, install it, they trade it or sell it back to the shop and continue to play the game if there were no checks in place.

There was nothing wrong really with the DRM for what MS tried to do because not having any type of DRM would be abused big time.  Instead, what they tried to do the market was definitely not ready for.  Actually if MS just went totally digital without the ability to sell, trade your game to a physical store, a lot of those DRM policies could have been dropped.   Anyway MS did not communicate it right and even if they did it was destined to fail because the market wasn't ready yet to go that route.

I would go with Sony, I mean none of the top brass has committed seppuku yet. xD

Besides, MS was called the Evil Empire by Apple fans before, so I suspect this is nothing new and is a generational thing with them. xD

I guess MS. considering how X1 stacks up against PS4. As for Sony multiple factors were in place.. they had invested huge amount into cell and Bluray which they assumed people will buy. I think everyone remember CELL was supposed to be 4 ghz, more powerful RSX, full BC compatiblity, not to mention three ethernet port, 2 hdmi so they had a something to ride on as it was going to be the most powerful consumer electronic at that point in time even including 360 and also there was virtually no competition given how 1st xbox and gamecube fared.

But on the other hand MS with X1 had no such advantage so they had no reason to be so confident/cocky abt X1. They were delivering on paper an inferior spec product compare to its competitor which is cheaper and more powerful. So i would say MS

Both companies were equally arrogant and stupid at the same time but for different reasons.

Sony was really smelling their success after the PS1 and 2. They totally ignored the competition and thought that brand loyalty was to strong for the competition to over come. Its very interesting the progression of Sony during the PS3 era. The company really grew up from that point and we are reaping the results. If it was not for Nintendo and MS having really strong sells and Sony having to go deep into the red, the Sony we see today probably would never exist.

MS off of the 360 was smelling their success to much as well and hiring managers who operate like the Xbox brand is on the same level as windows. MS continued to hire managers in top level positions who definitely do not know about the gaming market. You can see that a lot with some of the initiatives they have made during the X1 reveal. A lot of things MS put into the X1 really do not make a difference for the success of the console until it has reached a mass market price point. This is the real stumble from MS top brass. Price, gaming features and games are really what sell consoles this early in their release.

I have to say what makes MS mistakes so glaring today is the fact that Sony has been right on point. When I say right on point its their message. They have clearly taken advantage of every misstep MS has made and also switched gears to becoming a gaming platform by recognizing the indie movement and embracing it whole heartily. Sony has definitely been 2 steps ahead of MS this gen so it will be interesting if Phill can close the gap.

If you takes that in account, I also think MS is clearly more arrogant. Sony was backed by 10 years of absolute domination of the console market.

If not, it really depend on what you compare. Sony was arrogant for a longer time, before and after release, especially about the power of the PS3 and its value. MS was quicker to react, and dropped about anything that didn't work mostly before release... but there arrogance peak was so high ! For the first few months after announce, it's like the client would just have to shut up and comply to their brillant strategy. I think Sony was very arrogant about their product and brand image, but MS was kind of arrogant against the client with an impressive list of unpopular features.

I don't know whats worse...People that bought a second xbox 360 after their first one failed...or people that bought their 3rd xbox360...after their second failed

I don't find anything wrong with what Yusef said because there wasn't much room for him to say something different. He was trying to save face not sound arrogant. Other than that I think this poll should be about Kutaragi vs Mattrick rather than Sony vs Microsoft. As far as I'm concerned I disliked both of them but I at least think Kutaragi was talented.

So on point