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

Dreamarena was free.

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

"Also suffered" is grossly missleading. Neither the PS1's nor PS2's fail rates were ever comparable.

Myth:  Microsoft ruined the industry with their exclusivity deals

Again missleading. MS "ruined" or better hindered part of the industry by making games exclusive that were quite simply not selling on the platform. Outside of well known Japanese titles, I think exclusivity also proved out to be a mistake for Alan Wake as well.

TOTAL BS ands lies... The 360 had by far the worst failure rate of any electronic device, it was faulty right at launch. It launched in 2005..MS denied there was an issue for 2 years before finally giving in after documents leaked of MS engineers warning of issues before launch and threat of lawsuit. By that time 60 + % of 360's had died many times in some cases. MS ducked it for 2 years by then damage was done.

I went through 2 360's and MS told me too bad...On top of that the disc read errors were nearly as bad as RROD, and it plagued many early xboxes as well as other iussues.

MS rushed it out of fear of the PS brand at the consumers expense, knowing there were issues.

Ps2 was sold for 10 years and sold 150 million, of course there would be some issues they were not even close to the faulty 360 design...PS2's were well within normal operating rates of electronics.

Defending RRROD and comparing it to ps2 issues are moronic and dilusional.

The only conclusion one could logically reach by reading your post is that you believe Sony invented those things. Otherwise, in a tangent where you are crapping on MS for not inventing hardware but instead piggybacking on others ideas, would you give Sony credit for piggybacking on others ideas? I don't really care whether it was "officially" harped on by a console company before then or not, there were TV's that already did it and it was showcased at PC gaming conventions over a decade ago. It's old technology. Just like VR.

All 3 companies do a good enough job staying ahead of the curve tech wise. Microsoft and gaming are no different.

They are different. Sony MAKES hardware. Nintendo MAKES tech as well and both try to find new ways for us to game. Not saying Sony or Nintendo dont take ideas from outside, because they are human. Of course they do, but most of Microsofts creations come from outside entities. Look it up. Microsofts bread and butter where they are superior to Nintendo and Sony is their OS. No one in the console gaming industry can top their Online/OS and thats the thick and think of their innovation in the industry. They will always be the last to bring something else to the table in tech. They tried to stop Sony's adoption of Blu Ray, which Sony partially created. After trying and failing to stop Sony by using HD-DVD as a alternative platform Microsoft eventually fell in line like good little boys because in the end Sony tends to be the one calling the shots on format in the industry. The market for Blu Ray grew and everyone uses it. Innovation to MS is complete and utter DRM. If Microsoft had the choice there would be no disc drive in the XBox One, but the consumer base supported the PS3 thus meaning they support Blu Ray. People continued to buy it and the world continued to turn. Samsung, Toshiba and all of the companies in the Blu Ray Association have Sony to thank, because Sony has always been making newer formats cheaper for everyone. They did it with the CD player, DVD player and now Blu Ray. Its because of them why we have discs that can hold as much content as they do. If not people would complain if we didn't have at least one 500GB HD's last gen for installs. 

Nice long winded paragraph here but it's too far gone from the discussion for me to care much about it.

Of course you would ignore it.

Coke spent 3 billion in marketing a few years ago so I highly doubt Pepsi "destroys" them anywhere in that regard. Either way all the Coke vs Pepsi observations in the world won't help you explain how MS just thrives off image or spins more than anyone else.

I'll leave this here for you, because you seem to need it...

Oh please. I mean, it's nice when you try to create theories or actually relevant arguments to the discussion but try to make them a little firmer than this and not full of plot holes. So you're telling me MS is supposedly spending tons of money securing games to be showcased on Xbox One, because they are just all about dat image and just can't handle the bad press associated with Dudebro Shooter 7 running at 900p on Xbone. And at the same time last gen Sony just said "aww shucks" and completely gave up on multiplatform games being showcased on PS3 last gen. 

1. If we are to believe this logic, it would mean MS wouldn't have bothered securing any games to be showcased on 360 last gen, because there was no need, it was so well established that the 360 was the go-to console for 3rd party devs that Sony tapped out

Tapped out for what? I stated that when Sony took it and accepted having inferior multiplats. PS3 gamers had to accept that. There is no spin that Sony could've done. They would've just had to make sure they were the lead platform because otherwise their port would've come out inferior. The PS3 was hard to develop for. 

2. Sony had deals with plenty of publishers, including the two big ones EA and Ubisoft not only for games to be showcased on PS3, but they also got forever never coming to Xbox DLC included.

Sony had deals with plenty of publishers for DLC.  No one is arguing this. The games still worked, you know. The main platform to showcase console multiplats was the Xbox 360. Rarely did you ever see the PS3 being used to commercialize multiplats. I used Dragon Age: Inquisition as an example because aside from them getting DLC  the game is being shown on a Microsoft platform, which is inferior this gen. Its obvious they are being paid for this to happen. Microsoft is also struggling with the media about their precious cloud and how it will equalize the graphical gap between them and Sony. Hope it happens soon because they are starting to sound really sour. Its like they can't accept it. Its just like when they found out how powerful the PS4 was and then reports came in that MS got inspired to quickly change the clock speed on the Xbox One.

Oh yeah man, totally sounds like they threw in the towel to me! And I bet some E3 footage of DE3 on Xbone cost way more than exclusive marketing and DLC and showcasing of Ass Creed 3 and IV on PS3, or Battlefield/Medal of Honor PS3 showcasing and exclusive content, etc. Seems spot on LOL.

Did Sony fight when the media criticized them for not having Cross chat like the Xbox 360? No. They said they just didn't have the ram to make cross chat happen, but they put it in the PSP Vita and that was all the evidence we needed that they would put it in the next console. Thats how they do things. They don't cover it up or fight it, they roll with it.

No, there is no logic. Just long winded tangents like this that really don't address it at all. Your sole example of them "spinning more than anyone" (the trillions they spent on Dragon Age 3) was a complete joke, and there's been nothing about how MS "thrives off marketing". Maybe you just don't know what thrives means, idk. Oh well. These posts are getting too long for me to care.

You're kinda closed minded. Wait...very closed minded. Lets end this here. It's my fault for trying to explain things to you.

This ones on me. Don't respond...just move on.

Tapped out for what? I stated that when Sony took it and accepted having inferior multiplats. PS3 gamers had to accept that. There is no spin that Sony could've done. They would've just had to make sure they were the lead platform because otherwise their port would've come out inferior. The PS3 was hard to develop for. 

Sony had deals with plenty of publishers for DLC.  No one is arguing this. The games still worked, you know. The main platform to showcase console multiplats was the Xbox 360. Rarely did you ever see the PS3 being used to commercialize multiplats. I used Dragon Age: Inquisition as an example because aside from them getting DLC  the game is being shown on a Microsoft platform, which is inferior this gen. Its obvious they are being paid for this to happen. Microsoft is also struggling with the media about their precious cloud and how it will equalize the graphical gap between them and Sony. Hope it happens soon because they are starting to sound really sour. Its like they can't accept it. Its just like when they found out how powerful the PS4 was and then reports came in that MS got inspired to quickly change the clock speed on the Xbox One.

Did Sony fight when the media criticized them for not having Cross chat like the Xbox 360? No. They said they just didn't have the ram to make cross chat happen, but they put it in the PSP Vita and that was all the evidence we needed that they would put it in the next console. Thats how they do things. They don't cover it up or fight it, they roll with it.

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.

Online gaming was where the consoles were heading, anyway.  A few failed consoles before the Dreamcast even attempted it.  The PS2 also had an expansion slot from launch, with the intent to provide access to online multiplayer later.  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.  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.  It was Sony's competittion that made them feel the need to switch models.  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.  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.  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.  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."  That stopped being true after the first 2-3 years into the gen.  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.

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.