Give it up....Killzone is not facing off against Halo. It was billed by the media as a Halo killer back in the PS2 era, but failed to live up to that. Since then its been doing its own thing.  The saddest thing about Killzone is that everyone who criticized Killzone took it from its unique style with KZ2. They'eve actually tried to make the game play more like COD in the latest KZ so with that your comparison falls flat. Its obvious that right now they are trying to find their groove.

The reason why Sony is paying Activision for content is because they are playing the COD game Microsoft started with them. If you were Sony you would've done it as well seeing that its the same publisher. Microsoft still gets content first on the One and 360 with COD so its not like Sony shouldn't let up now we're all subjected to this on both sides of the tracks. If Microsoft wants to create false perception of exclusivity to something as minor as DLC so can Sony...so don't even go there. Its just the screwed up world of business that both Xbox and Playstation gamers have to live with now, isn't ?

I think Killzone´s biggest problem is that it lacks identity, and yes, it is still trying to go for the Halo audience.

I completely agree with you in the second part, both MS and Sony does this to make money and please gamers while doing it, they share those intentions :). And give it up with this whole "MS started it, and therefore forced Sony to do it!" Are you saying that Sony gets a free pass because MS alledgedly "started it"?

I think Killzone´s biggest problem is that it lacks identity, and yes, it is still trying to go for the Halo audience.

I completely agree with you in the second part, both MS and Sony does this to make money and please gamers while doing it, they share those intentions :). And give it up with this whole "MS started it, and therefore forced Sony to do it!" Are you saying that Sony gets a free pass because MS alledgedly "started it"?

I agree that I have lost respect for Sony for buying into ms' games. I still blame ms tho...maybe I shouldn't..but I do. 

The ps1 and ps2 were supported for over ten years. They did "invent" or followed a ten year plan since their first console.  MS followed suit for the most part. No big deal. I don't think nintendo nor sega ever ran a console that long.

The last PSone game Sony released was in 2004, less than 10 years after it debuted in Japan. And just after its 9th year in the market in the US. They did release PS2 games after ten years, albeit yearly sports rehashes. But that's fine, we can count those. It's still support. So Sony did it with the PS2 anyway.

The problem with crediting them for some "ten year plan" is that it's BS. It implies that no other console company supported their platforms for that long.

Atari 2600 (you could also count the 7800 depending on how strict you wanna be with it)
NES (11 years for Nintendo here, their last NES game was 1994)
Master System (also 11 years for Sega here)
Game Boy (at least 10 here)

I feel I could continue to go down the list but I'm just going to stop here as the point has already been proven with four, possibly five other consoles that did this before Sony ever launched a console. So this idea that they created a ten year console life span is make believe. Furthermore, another thing I have pointed out to STAGE in the past that he ignores when convenient, is Kim said the Xbox 360 would last 7 years, and the media compared that to Sony's ten year PS3 plan. So not only are the credit and accolades he is trying to show on Sony incorrect, but his tangent about MS copying them... doesn't even exist. It would be like me saying Sony dubbed Killzone the "Halo killer".

Lastly, why are goal posts being shifted? Who cares about a ten year plan? Someone posted that MS always abandons their consoles 1-2 years before releasing a new one, I simply proved them wrong. All STAGE was doing is trying to deflect. Or, more accurately, trying to credit Sony for something someone else did. I mean we all know any positive movement in the industry really if you trace it back far enough, leaked out of Sony HQ ;)

The  initiative from Ms to follow sonys ten year plan is the only reason  the 360 is being supported. It was during Shane kims time as the head of xbox. If it wasn't for him following Sony the Xbox generations would've ended much sooner. The whole point of their existence  is to be a thorn in Sony's side until they stop each generational  strand of production . 

If those are practices you don´t agree with, then you should be equally upset with them both. Just remember, these practices have existed in one form or another since the NES era and is a consequence of an industry where "exclusivity" has been the dominant driving force for 30 years.

Wrong the original Xbox was discontinued for one reason only. The hardware would never be profitable.  MS changed how they designed consoles with the X360 and they are happy to continue to support it because it is all gravy now. Profitable hardware (for several years now), profitable software, and profitable services.