To be fair, Demon Souls came out before Dark Souls, so it wasn't really copying per se...

I have to agree with the others, though, as sad as it makes me as a Playstation fan

Uncharted and the Tomb Raider of old were akin, but when you play them both you start to notice a major difference in style. One is an acrobatic open third world shooter, while the other is a closed off, cinematic action quest. The new Tomb Raider is essentially Uncharted with a rich girl who has a death wish. Both fun games, but i'll stick with Uncharted if I want to see truer growth. Sadly it will be the last Uncharted, but we need to see newer IP's out of Sony. :)

True, true. The overall setting is similar, but the gameplay vastly differs.

And yeah, looking forward to what Sony shows this gen!

LOL...yes...

If Polyphony and Team Ico fell apart tomorrow, Microsoft would be the first to sweep up Sony's seconds just like they always do....just like they did the layoffs at Sony Santamonica. Microsoft loves to align themselves with former Sony teams and they make public spectacle of it as well. Insomniacs game is at a much higher status than it deserves all because Microsoft is funding an IP from a Sony affiliated company. 

Outside of Bungie...what disbanded companies of Microsoft has Sony ever outstretched their hand to align themselves with? 

Thats right...none.

Because outside of Bungie...there has been no such company.

If Sony were to fall apart. Microsoft would buy all of their IP's because before they were in the industry with the Xbox they tried to be partners with Sony before Sony turned them down. Once second best....always second best.

Again....just say you like Microsoft better. Its easier to end this that way.

First I have to like Sony then to like MS better.

For Sony to sweep MS crumbs they have to be able to afford them.

"If Nintendo were to fall apart. Sony would buy all of their IP's because before they were in the industry with the Play Station they tried to be partners with Nintendo before Nintendo turned them down. Once copycat....always copycat."

My first Microsoft console was the Xbox 360 and I gotta admit, I like it a lot.  After spending the better part of the 7th gen on this forum, I realize that a lot of people blame Microsoft for things that are wrong with the industry.  Things that, quite frankly, weren't their fault.  Read on:

Myth:  Microsoft was the one that started making us pay for online gaming

-This is false.  Anybody who was around at the time knows that SegaNet (Dreamcast) charged for an online gaming subscription long before Xbox Live.  In fact, if I remember, SegaNet cost around $19 a month.  Even before them, there were paid (unlicensed) online services for Super Nes/Genesis games.

Myth:  Microsoft made it okay to launch a console with faulty hardware

-Again, not true.  The original Xbox was built like a tank.  The Xbox 360 may have the worst failure rate of all time but the PS2 also suffered so many defects that Sony was the subject of a class action lawsuit.  Sony settled.  Even before that, it was widely accepted that the PS1 was a fragile device.  Quick fixes were common, including turning the console on its side or even upside down.

Myth:  Microsoft ruined the industry with their exclusivity deals

-Before the Xbox 360, it was actually Nintendo with the NES and Super NES that wouldn't allow companies to make games for the competiton.  Companies found ways around this by releasing their games under different names.  For example, Street Fighter 2 Turbo was exclusive to the Super Nes so Capcom would release "Street Fighter 2: Special Champion Edition" for the Genesis.  Virtually the same game but a way around the exclusivity deal.  And it wasn't just Nintendo.  In a 2001 issue of EGM, Microsoft was preparing for the launch of the Xbox and was quoted saying that certain games were "Moneyhatted" to remain exclusive to the PS2 but they were able to get most of whay they wanted.

It would seem that Microsoft "throwing money" at gaming companies for exclusive content was a standard practice long before the Xbox was a threat.

There were more examples but I can't think of them right now.  I'm at work.  I'll try to remember them later.  My point is, instead of hating Microsoft for ruining the industry, why not thank them for what they brought to the table?  Competition with Sony made Sony a better company.  Their focus on online (especially when Broadband was in its infancy) brought about many revolutions.  Acheivements gave people many incentives to replay and explore their games.  They were the first console to offer Netflix and many other apps.  They were the first console maker to pack a built in hard drive when others were using memory cards.  

Instead of hating on them, why not say "Thank you, Microsoft.  Thank you for all that you've done."?  

I'm d21lewis.

Petty argument. 

This argument is a joke. Nothing you're saying comes up to much. You can look up the things i've stated.

Lol, this has got to be some of the strangest logic I have ever heard.  We should thank MS for taking some poor practices and multiplying them to the Nth degree?  No thanks.  And some of your contributions to gaming are greatly exaggerated.

Well...what were Sony's contributions?  Disc based gaming (the answer is no, btw)?  Analog face buttons?  A gaming camera (which I first saw on a Nickelodeon show called "Nick Arcade"?  Enlighten me.

Online gaming was where the consoles were heading, anyway.  A few failed consoles before the Dreamcast even attempted it (Which I think I mentioned).  The PS2 also had an expansion slot from launch, with the intent to provide access to online multiplayer later (Even the Nes, SNES, GC, and PS1 had expansion ports at launch).  I will give credit to MS for finding a better integrated model, but we would have had the consoles online ready last gen without Live.  And the fact still remains, MS is the one who actually popularized paying for online play on consoles, not Sega, and Sony went two gens not charging for online (and then Sony decided to go the M$ route.  Sony saw something "bad" and said they wanted to do it too?  Shame on them!).  Now, you can make the argument that console gaming is different, since we have moved to the model where most console makers need to provide their own servers, and I would agree with you.  However, MS was also greedy and offered NOTHING in return for paying for online, unlike Sony (MS was offering discounts, free games like 1 vs 100 and Aegis Wing).  It was Sony's competittion that made them feel the need to switch models (As mentioned before, I think it was M$'s model that made Sony feel the need to add features and it's Sony that is now charging for online.  Sony HAD to keep the PSN free to compete with Microsoft last gen.  They needed that advantage to say they were offering a better value.  I'd like to call it a draw but it looks like M$ influenced Sony with charging for online, trophies, etc more than Sony influenced M$).  Though, they still don't get it, as they just recently offered the same game two months in a row, giving much less value than PS Plus.

True, other console makers have come out with faulty HW.  However, again, MS took it to the Nth degree.  No console has had a failure rate of 33%-50% (probably much higher as the years have gone on) that the manufacturer KNEW about, yet rushed it out just so they could be first to market.  Then, when the console broke months later, blamed the consumers, KNOWING full well their console was a architecture nightmare and was burning up (No argument.  I suffered through the RROD and a malfunctioning disc drive.  Both were fixed for free, though....).  And it took a court case and two more chipsets (as well as years) to fully rectify the problem. 

As for exclusivity, true exclusive agreements have happened before, but MS has extended that into the most ridiculous things, like betas and DLC a few months early.  Personally, this doesn't bother me too much.  I mean the betas/DLC eventually comes out, anyway.  What I do dislike is MS's trend of not securing exclusive rights early on, allowing some games to actually be announced for other platforms (Alan Wake, with a much more promising premise, comes to mind), only for MS to realize they need more exclusives, so they just throw money at the devs/publishers.  Of course, the ones that should really be botherd by this are Xbox gamers, since really MS only does this to make up for a lack of 1st party support.  Which brings me to...

I don't think MS is the worst thing to happen to gaming, but many MS fans are (I'm sure Microsoft has fans but I think more people are just fans of trhe console.).  From what I have seen on this forum, and many others, is that half or more of their posts are just defending MS's poor policies and screwups.  No fanbase defends their company of choice so vehemently and with such blinders on, that their company can do no wrong (I would disagree and say all companies have their super fanboys defend their.  Some people just don't think their company can do anything wrong.  It's kinda sad.  Can't speak for anybody else but my post history is full of several cases where I attack/defend all three....but then I don't think I'm a fanboy.).  Sony and Nintendo fans have criticized their companies of choice greatly, even forcing them to change or rectify bad choices.  But, when it comes to MS, it seems its more the outcry of gamers of the other fanbases, as well as their decisions affecting sales, that force MS's hand.  Again, going by forums, the majority of "true" MS fans felt that MS's policies for this gen were PERFECT.  Many still wish they had gone with their originial plans and not listened to "Sony and Nintendo fanboys."  I guess they would have been fine with the One selling ~15M-20M.

Seriously, what other fanbase has so many that would point the finger at the consumer, along with the manufacturer, when there was an obvious problem?  RROD?  "Just buy another, not a big problem."  "You bought the cheaper model, what did you expect?"  "Just buy the Jasper chipset 360, it fixed...Oh, nevermind just get the Japser chipset 360, THAT actually fixed it."  Made excuses for Live costing, when Sony and Nintendo didn't charge anything.  "Live is SOOO much better than PSN."  (Live actually was so much better than PSN, though.  At least, at one point in time. You agree, obviously.)  That stopped being true after the first 2-3 years into the gen.  (So I guess you wanted them to suddenly stop charging?  It was $50 since like 2002.  Not only did they not stop charging, Sony followed suit!) I guess cross-game chat was just worth that much.  And most recently, they complain that MS even changed their failed DRM policies.  "Pretty much everyone has internet, now, so it's not a big deal."  "It's a war on Gamestop, not gamer's rights."  "Don't change your policies, it's just a bunch of Sony and Nintendo fanboys crying, not us."  "You don't like their policies, just don't buy it."  No wonder it takes so long for MS to change policies/decisions, where Sony takes days (maybe a week or two), most of their fanbase never gets mad at them (If M$ hadn't changed their policies, I wouldn't have bought an Xbox One.).

I'm just glad that this gen, they will realize that they actually make up a very small section of the gaming population, with many previous fans switching sides.  Power to the gamer.   (Amen!)