I won't boycott an entire company either, unless they are unethical. But in my example, Subway has no other products. Hence, they suck.

I hate and wish destruction upon them. MS suck at everything they do, their products are always bad.

Their hardware is just awful, ever hear of reliability ?

well, it's easy to just say that you hate this and that, but can you put you finger at what you disslike?

why do I not like sony?, they have been stealing innovating ideas from, not only nintendo, but also microsoft and sega since the beginning, and now I do not like them because they've fucked up everything.

why do I not like microsoft?, they're just too fucking big, they don't have to be innovating, all they have to do is to open up their wallet and buy the competition, I particulary disslike them for buying rare.

why do I not like nintendo?, they lost the market in first place because they were so incredibly stubborn, and stupid, just like sony are now, they let there fans down in europe(there was a major cartel holding up the prices of the games, I bought banjo tooie at a cost of about 7,5 dollars).
and they let rare go, that I can't forgive.


I do not hate either company, and the company I think best of is nintendo
i've always liked nintendo best, but that doesn't mean I can't critizise them when they fuck up.

I don't hate Microsoft as a company, but I do greatly dislike its history as a company. IMO abusing their industry strength the company (due to its managers) killed a lot of innovative companies and technologies.

Personally I wouldn't credit Microsoft for 'introducing' online gaming to the console market. I already played Modem / Null-modem cable games like Battle Chess, Stunt Car Racer and Gravity Force in the 80s (Amiga). IMO it was obvious this sort of connected gaming experiences would eventually come to consoles by the time the internet matured enough and was more widespread amongst consumers.

Sorry to tell you, but it appears that Microsoft and Nintendo are teaming up to get rid of Sony. You better start accepting Microsoft, because if Sony fails, all there will be is Microsoft and Nintendo. Who cares who brought what. All that's important is the video games. Microsoft perfected a bunch of other ideas before, too, and they also brought a lot of new things to the table. Also, if Sony fails, all of Sony's games would come to the Wii, and Xbox 360. Remember, the console means nothing without the games.

IMO the original XBox was a rather ugly console (and originally even dangerous due to the power cord issue, which were recalled years after release due to M$ fearing pending lawsuits) and had a lot more in common with a cut-down PC. Its primary game was Halo developed by a company they bought which produced mainly high quality Macintosh games and before the takeover even supported Linux.

MSDOS made them big due to IBM's mistake to outsource its operating system development to Microsoft. It was one of the most limited and handicapped OSes ever release, written by a sole developer which tried to copy CP/M (today such a thing would probably have resulted into huge legal battles). Microsoft bought QDOS (Quick and Dirty OS) for 25,000 USD and rebranded it MSDOS.

IMO there's nothing particularly glorious about Microsoft's history as a company, except for the amount of profits they generate per employee. I think the XBox 360 is the least sturdy console ever released, but Microsoft doesn't want to provide consumers the actual figures so they can make a honest purchase judgement.

Microsoft haven't improved at all

they're still the FUD slinging evil bastards they always were. Ballmer is even worse than Gates at it.

There's nothing wrong with hating one company and liking another. All companies are after your money, but they do it in different ways. MS will do anything for your money, whereas Google has the approach that if you're genuinely not evil then people will continue using your products. The end goal is the same but the means is important.

As a result, I use Google's products and I don't use Microsofts.

I dislike Microsoft, but the fact is, Sony and Nintendo are no better.

In the 1980s, and early 1990s, Nintendo FORCED retail outlets to NOT sell Sega systems, they forced Devs to only work for Nintendo or else, and had some of the most abominable practices that far outweigh the negatives MS has had in the console market (and equal to them in a general sence).

Nintendo has also owned/opperated Love Hotels in Japan. I'm not a huge fan of brothels, therefore Love Hotels to me are nearly equal, and those that own them.

Microsoft brought HDDs to consoles on a major scale by being the first company to incorporate HDD into their system(s) 6 years ago. Something only now that Sony is doing, and Nintedon't. Online is in a similar situation. Yes, Sega started it (with MS's help), but MS still has the largest marketshare of online gaming. Is it perfect? No. But the content is much more viable and better than either competitor.

They also innovated on the core packs, trying to atleast get consumers something viable in the mass market price, no matter how many people call it the "tard pack" - I've seen quite a few parents enjoy the "tard pack" over the Prems for their kids.

Sony, although great with the PS1, has constantly downgraded the archatectural designs of their systems. The PS2 was crap, and was difficult to dev for, and since it was #1, forced many people to use their systems that Sony really didn't back up with strong documentation (and as far as I know, they're still in 3rd place when it comes to helping the devs out with problems).

And now they have $599.95, trying evenmoreso than MS and Nintendo to overcharge consumers for needless features - something MS and Nintendo are guilty of.

So in the end, each company has their bad points. I really could care less about Nintendo. They've screwed over retailers, 3rd parties, and consumers in so many ways, yet every child loves them for Mario. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, and thats mine.

I however, am indebted to MS for producing a console that has tons of PC-quality games that are exclusive, and save me from spending thousands on upgrading my PC. Not only this, I feel like they are trying very hard to vie for 3rd parties, and are challenging Nintendo and Sony to do better - in the same way Sega challenged Nintendo, Sony challenged Nintendo and conventional cartridges, and ect.

Then you better hate Sony too because that's exactly the same thing Sony is trying to do.

In fact, the whole reason MS went into consoles is because Sony wanted to turn playstations into set-top boxes, and MS felt threatened.

If the only company in gaming was Nintendo (that only cares about gaming) MS would have never got into video games. But the fact is Sony cares about a lot more than gaming, and thus is a threat that must be defended.

It's only smart of both companies to do this, BTW. Look at Apple, you think Ipod is just to play MP3's? Hell no, the main point of Ipod is to lock you into iTunes. That's why Ipods wont play other companies DRM. It's not because they cant, it's because Apple doesn't want you buying music from anybody but them. Apple wants to turn the Ipod, a innocent MP3 player, into a huge monopoly in many other areas.

Sad but true, a smart company will think this way, and if they dont then somebody else will just beat them to it.

Hell, the whole point of the damn PS3 is to pimp Blu-Ray! Shit man, are you that blind? I gaurentee you Blu_Ray is more important to Sony as a company than gaming. Now do you feel stupid?

Basically I can only respect your opinion on this if you hate MS AND Sony, because they are no different. Otherwise I have to call complete and utter bullshit from you.

@ mrstickball

You can upgrade an Amiga CD32 games console from the early 90s with an internal harddrive, internet, more RAM and better CPU through an internal expansion board, printer, etc, etc if you wished to add this. IMO not really an example of true innovation. IMO it was a bad mistake for Microsoft to not include a harddrive for the XBox 360 by default. In am sure this affected games development for the premium and even indirectly for the PS3 as many games are being ported.

It can be argued if anyone needs games consoles at all, they are considered to be luxury devices. Personally I am very happy with the additional PS3 features like HDMI 1.3, 7.1 surround audio, Blu-Ray movies (/additional storage capacity for games), Other OS support, etc. Setting such high standards makes me believe it's a relatively future proof games console. With regard to overpricing, AFAIK Sony is making a loss on the PS3, so IMO it's actually underpriced while offering high specs.

Note that without some of these additional features I wouldn't even have bought a games console for my home at all, for example I owned non of the consoles from the previous generation. So opinions differ, one product may be more suitable for you, but that doesn't mean another console may be more appealing to others.