By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Microsoft is innocent!!

estebxx on 13 July 2014

My PS1 still works perfectly after 14 years...



Around the Network
VanceIX on 13 July 2014
estebxx said:
My PS1 still works perfectly after 14 years...

You probably have a later production model, those had a lot of the issues fixed that the original had.



                                                                                                               You're Gonna Carry That Weight.

Xbox One - PS4 - Wii U - PC

S.T.A.G.E. on 13 July 2014
DarkD said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
DarkD said:

The only one being made by microsoft are Gears and Halo.  Considering their sales, those will probably just end up being PC exclusives from then on.  It's literally win-win-win if Microsoft drops out.  Profits would be higher on less systems, and development costs would go down.  We may even have more FPS games in that case because resources would be freed up.  Believe me, the american FPS and TPS are the last thing that would ever disappear from gaming.  

The Japanese games are going multiplatform because there aren't enough sales on any one platform right now to justify exclusivity.  If it becomes a two person race that would very likely change.  


Microsoft never made those games. They bought bungie while they were developing the game for Apple. Halo was supposed to be the killer App for Apple computers in 2000. Steve Jobs was the first man to reveal Halo for Apple. Look it up on Youtube. 

Gears of War was just published by Microsoft. That game is all Epic in creation. Epic didn't want to make Gears games for the new gen so Microsoft was forced to buy it from them.

Microsofts top four games that they've ever made internally are Crackdown, Fable, Forza and Project Gotham. 


Even more reason why we wouldn't lose anything if they dropped out of consoles.  


Exactly. Microsoft hasn't done much of anything. Most of their work was done by outside companies. This is why they continue to depend on outside companies. They let money trump creativity. They can buy the best developers in the world with the best tech, but they could never direct them to make the next best new IP. Why not? Not because they can't. Its because Microsoft internally doesn't endorse creativity.



S.T.A.G.E. on 13 July 2014
VanceIX said:
estebxx said:
My PS1 still works perfectly after 14 years...

You probably have a later production model, those had a lot of the issues fixed that the original had.


Sony's consoles have never gone past a 15% failure rate to the best of my knowledge and they've launched on time. My PS2 still works perfect even though PS2's had higher failure issues than the original Xbox, they still weren't above the norm.



VanceIX on 13 July 2014
S.T.A.G.E. said:
VanceIX said:
estebxx said:
My PS1 still works perfectly after 14 years...

You probably have a later production model, those had a lot of the issues fixed that the original had.


Sony's consoles have never gone past a 15% failure rate to the best of my knowledge and they've launched on time. My PS2 still works perfect even though PS2's had higher failure issues than the original Xbox, they still weren't above the norm.

True. The PS1 didn't have "failure" as much as it did just random issues, like not functioning properly if it wasn't sideways or upside down. People back then just dealt with it instead of reporting it for the most part.



                                                                                                               You're Gonna Carry That Weight.

Xbox One - PS4 - Wii U - PC

Around the Network
S.T.A.G.E. on 13 July 2014
VanceIX said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:


Sony's consoles have never gone past a 15% failure rate to the best of my knowledge and they've launched on time. My PS2 still works perfect even though PS2's had higher failure issues than the original Xbox, they still weren't above the norm.

True. The PS1 didn't have "failure" as much as it did just random issues, like not functioning properly if it wasn't sideways or upside down. People back then just dealt with it instead of reporting it for the most part.


Yeah, and back then even if a console broke a lot of people could afford to replace them in America. With the economy being the way it is today its much harder to replace than it was when the original Playstation came out. The 90's were still good times in America.



shloob on 13 July 2014

It's simply the internet's fault. back in the day these practices were all common you just rarely heard about them. Now you hear about anything and everything. There wasn't a one stop shop for information and people weren't so eager to knock anything and everything about anything and everything,



Goatseye on 13 July 2014
S.T.A.G.E. said:


Exactly. Microsoft hasn't done much of anything. Most of their work was done by outside companies. This is why they continue to depend on outside companies. They let money trump creativity. They can buy the best developers in the world with the best tech, but they could never direct them to make the next best new IP. Why not? Not because they can't. Its because Microsoft internally doesn't endorse creativity.

Sure, MS didn't have any influence on the RTS or TPS game that Halo was going to be. Bungie didn't have a clue what to do with the game protoype before MS's acquisition.

But sure, all those downloadable titles before this gen don't count because somebody found Arcade and Indy titles last year for 8th gen.

Money sometimes trumps creativity but MS doesn'tuse it to copy competition's games.



thismeintiel on 13 July 2014
d21lewis said:
thismeintiel said:

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!)

I respect your opinion.

Sony brought analog sticks back into gaming (real analog sticks, not the technique used in the N64, which Nintendo abandoned the following gen), especially in the now popular twin stick variety.  Just about all controllers since the PS1 launched, have modeled the basic design and layout of the DS, grips and all.   They also showed that discs were the format of the future, when other consoles that used them failed, and still others stuck with cartridges.  Of course, I'm saying they started trends, not invented the tech or did it first.  Though, I guess they did play a part in developing CD, DVD, and Blu-ray.  But, this is why I dismissed that MS starting the trend towards online gaming, since it was so obvious that we were heading that way.  But, I do give them credit for coming up with a better integration of online gaming. 

As far as expansion slots go, it doesn't matter if those other sytems had an expansion slot (what a silly argument), what does matter is what it was for.  In the PS2's case its purpose was to allow connection to online gaming, dial-up and broadband.  It also allowed the use of a HDD.  And while it may just be my opinion, I think they have made some of the best 1st party games, which brought some great experiences to gaming.  Their main contribution, however, was making console gaming a phenomenon.  Before, the largest a market leader was able to obtain was 62M.  102M was just a pipedream before the PS1 launched, the SNES only managed 49M, let alone the ~160M the PS2 achieved.

I didn't expect MS to stop charging for Live, but they should have been providing much more in return.  Sure they had a COUPLE of free games, which were mainly paid for by still advertising (something else Sony doesn't force upon you), but nothing like what PS Plus was offering.  They also increased the price by $10 and then...continued to give the same "nothing."  Only recently, because of the PS3's later success and PS4's early success, were they compelled to give away more free games (too bad most were ages old by then) and better discounts in the store.  Either way, they still have a ways to go to match the value you get for $50 with Sony compared to the $60 with MS.  Also, Sony didn't have to have PSN free to compete with MS, they were just going with their model from the previous gen and weren't going to charge for it from the get go. Sony's Achilles heel was the $600 price point for the better model.

And no, if you are defending a company's horrible decisions left and right, while blaming consumers for their "poor luck," you are a fan of the company, not the console.  There is a huge difference.  Fans of the console are the ones jumping ship this gen.  Some are staying now that they changed policies, but many have already left due to not trusting MS, anymore.  But, those who defended MS before the 180 and still say they would be fine with the old policies, they are fans of the company.  Personally, I'll never own a MS console, but I do maintain respect for those who HAD to wait for the 180 before even thinking of buying a One.

Amen, indeed.  Though, I HATE your opinion. 

 

Lol, jk. 



 

Puppyroach on 13 July 2014

Even though I agree with the OP´s post, I don´t agree with the premise "MS is innocent!". No Company is innocent, they are here for our cash, and ae willing to do alot to get it.