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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Am I the only one who doesnt care about Microsoft?

Hmm, always thought there were already HDD only games like FFXI, but that's only the beta.



Around the Network

I hate M$ with a passion. They are suing Linux Users for Patient infringement and trying to stop the open-source community.



PC gaming is better than console gaming. Always.     We are Anonymous, We are Legion    Kick-ass interview   Great Flash Series Here    Anime Ratings     Make and Play Please
Amazing discussion about being wrong
Official VGChartz Folding@Home Team #109453
 

@ He300

I think that's particular bad, because they are registering so many rediculous patents, features and designs used in similar rival efforts for over 10 years before Microsoft finally implemented them into their OSes. In the good old days Microsoft was an Amiga software developing company (MSDOS era), they learned a lot from working with AmigaOS , an OS which offered a pre-emptive multitasking GUI enviroment, copy & paste between windowed spreadsheets/word processors, video editing and many other features currently implemented in modern OSes and software.

IMO it's sad and funny that out of all companies, a copycat company like Microsoft is taking this road.



Naughty Dog: "At Naughty Dog, we're pretty sure we should be able to see leaps between games on the PS3 that are even bigger than they were on the PS2."

PS3 vs 360 sales

MikeB said:

Uh, GTA will not require a HDD. MS mandates that all games must be able to be played on the Core.

IMO a major obstackle for developers to get the most out this additional feature (for example make use and rely on harddrive caching). The 20GB mostly seems useful for demos and smaller downloadable games, for high definition movies even just one Blu-Ray movie in full quality will likely not fit on the harddrive (and Microsoft needs a serious server upgrade if they are serious about the high definition movies distributed over the internet stand-point!).

Currently I mostly store ordinary resolution music videos, MP3 and photos on my PS3, 60GB is quite a lot but I am happy it's easily possible to upgrade to a bigger harddrive from any company myself. I did buy Lemmings, Blast Factor, Super Ruba Dub and Fl0w as well! Next up will most likely be Warhawk, the first game which will really require some space!


I don't think it's unreasonable to implement minimum hardware requirements just like any PC game. This kind of restriction seems detremental(sp?) to devs looking to make huge titles on the 360.

BTW, the easiest (read: cheapest) way to upgrade your space is an external USB h/d, those 2.5 internal laptop drives are still very pricy, plus you end up wasting the 60 gig drive that's in there already.



I don't think it's unreasonable to implement minimum hardware requirements just like any PC game.

PC games are usually not required to support low specced PCs, this measure limits the freedom for developers to develop their game according to the specifications they think is desireable for their game. GTA IV development is affected by the core's lack of a default harddrive and the XBox 360's DVD storage limitations. As this is a cross-platform game this will probably not only affect the XBox 360 version, but the PS3 version as well. So we may never know what Rockstar actually had in store for us.

BTW, the easiest (read: cheapest) way to upgrade your space is an external USB h/d, those 2.5 internal laptop drives are still very pricy, plus you end up wasting the 60 gig drive that's in there already.

IMO 2.5 inch harddrives aren't that expensive and for me would be well worth the extra bucks to have the harddrive neatly stored inside the PS3. But 60GB is more than enough for now, if at some point I will upgrade the harddrive I will probably go for a 200GB drive which will likely have gone down in price by that time.

 



Naughty Dog: "At Naughty Dog, we're pretty sure we should be able to see leaps between games on the PS3 that are even bigger than they were on the PS2."

PS3 vs 360 sales

Around the Network
stof said:
Hey RoadKillers. when you say You hate Microsoft, are you refering to their consoles? Their first party software? Corporate philosophy?

I dont like there products. I dont like the Xbox's or the Zunes. I hardly like any of the stuff there in beside computer support. Its my own opinion though. Maybe it was a good thing that the xbox came, to make Nintendo and Sony work harder to make better games but I never liked Microsoft with anything beside what they do with computers. I might change my mind with there new product coming out (The touch table thingy). Who knows I might even perfer Microsoft in the future over Nintendo and Sony but as of now i dont really like the stuff they make.



fgsduilfgasuklwgefidslzfgb4yiogwefhawi4fbielat5gy240bh3e

sharky said:
Xyrax said:
I dont mind the Xbox consoles themselves and I certainly dont mind the great games that come to it. But I despise Microsfts intent to turn consoles into set top boxes for the living room. I really really hate the idea of that. I would really prefer consoles stay consoles, if they want to create some pc'ish multi media hub then make one, but leave gaming out of it.

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.


First off, watch your tone, its a discussion. And please don't try and school me on the goings on of the video game industry as judging from your hotheadedness I was likely gaming before you were born. And yes, I do ALSO dislikes Sonys vision of the set top box.

But if you notice, the thread title mentions NOTHING of Sony. The thread asks how you feel about Microsoft, and to that I replied. So take YOUR bullshit elsewhere and stop getting testy with me dude.

And finally, I never stated I hated Microsoft as a whole. I said I disliked their vision, not the company as a whole. Work on your reading comprehension before you go calling someone else stupid.



mrstickball said:
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.

However, The major difference is Nintendo's major unethical behaviour was 20 years ago. Since then they have all new management, they have been served a whole lot of humble pie by Sony, and they're back and they're running things better. If they start screwing customers over again then I'll stop buying their products, simple.

Microsoft and Sony have been unethically and illegally screwingpeople over constantly and are STILL doing it. If Sony/Microsoft removes all their upper management and have years of ethical behaviour then I will consider buying their products again.

 



Help! I'm stuck in a forum signature!

omgwtfbbq said:
mrstickball said:
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.

However, The major difference is Nintendo's major unethical behaviour was 20 years ago. Since then they have all new management, they have been served a whole lot of humble pie by Sony, and they're back and they're running things better. If they start screwing customers over again then I'll stop buying their products, simple.

Microsoft and Sony have been unethically and illegally screwingpeople over constantly and are STILL doing it. If Sony/Microsoft removes all their upper management and have years of ethical behaviour then I will consider buying their products again.

 


QFT



If Sony/Microsoft removes all their upper management

I think for Microsoft the public perception may enhance but with regard to Sony, they already are ranked number one with their brand:

A survey conducted in Fall 2006 shows that Sony has the strongest brand:

The AlixPartners Brand Power IndexSM found that the ten most powerful brands today are:

1. Sony (NYSE-SNE)
2. Johnson & Johnson (NYSE-JNJ)
3. Kraft (NYSE-KFT)
4. Procter & Gamble (NYSE-PG)
5. Campbell’s (NYSE-CPB)
6. Toyota (NYSE-TM)
7. Tylenol
8. Dell (NasdaqGS-DELL)
9. General Mills (NYSE-GIS)
10. Hewlett-Packard (NYSE-HPQ)

Of note, several mega-brands such as Coca Cola (Nasdaq-COKE), Pepsi NYSE-PBG), tied for 11th, and Nike (NYSE-NKE), at 14th did not crack the top 10 under this new methodology.

http://www.alixpartners.com/EN/NewsMedia/PressReleases/tabid/129/PressReleaseID/73/Display/Detail/Default.aspx



Naughty Dog: "At Naughty Dog, we're pretty sure we should be able to see leaps between games on the PS3 that are even bigger than they were on the PS2."

PS3 vs 360 sales