Are you disagreeing with me? Because I have thanked MS for not giving us the Xbox ideals of last gen. Sony took it from them and they can keep it.

if MS hadnt rushed the 360 inspite of it's faults it would have bombed big time, the only reason it has sold as much as it has is the fact it had a year on the other 2, if it had been released at the same time it would'nt even have sold 5 million by now.

Not really ,the online fees model has its limits.Plus the RROD ,the fact that it hasnt any HD reader ,and that MS made cheaper the console with a fautly motherboard desing and lack of Wifi and HDD makes the console only the second best between it and the PS3.And MS could have got more aggresive about price drops.

Only in Japan

 Microsoft needs to have fees for something. They need to cover losses. Sony already has the PSP and the PS2. 50 for a year of quality online gaming is not too much to ask. If you're going to complain about 50 dollars for online for one year, then i'd hate to see you complain about paying $60 for an HD console game that you'll stop playing after a while, only to buy another.

CGI-Quality - Yes, the industry does require the FPS genre, it's clearly the dominant genre right now, many millions of players love it and some of the best games ever are FPS. If the Xbox consoles work towards removing the COMPLETELY LAUGHABLE idea that FPS are only good on PCs, then that alone makes the Xbox a significant entry into the games industry. And it's a helluva stupid leap to drag up the old "Xbox only good for shooters" crap, given that;

A) in the same paragraph, you criticise MS for bringing JRPGS to their console, a more different genre than FPS you couldn't get, because they should somehow let other companies have them. Whether these games would sell more on other consoles is irrelevant, it's not MS' job to benefit Sony or Nintendo, is it?

and

B) Sony fanboys are now backing Sony's weakass attempt to draw the FPS crowd away from the 360 TO the PS3. I mean, spending 2 years talking about "shooterbox 360" then talking about how MS have no shooters coming out to match Killzone 2 (lol) and Resistance 2 (LOLOLOLOL). Hypocrisy FTW.

@ CGI-Quality

Ha your funny lol - NOT.

Believe me,you whould still be paing 600$ for a ps3 now if it wasn`t for the 360. It used to cost 800$,now it`s about 400 or less. RRod is gone with the Jasper in september so there goes the big reason you ps3 fanboys "inform" other people not to buy a 360. MS cut the price of the 20gb 360, Sony did not do the same with the 40gb ps3. Why? Because they care about consumers.

MS is spending millions to secure exclusivity while Sony is making it`s own games... I don`t mind that,gives me prouf that MS cares about the 360 when it comes to great games. Sony is dependent of it`s first party development,MS is not,they buy games off 3`rd parties. Great for gamers. What happens if you don`t like Resistance and Killzone ? They will always be sequels to those games (1`st party) . In MS camp you have more variety,even if it`s bought.

Anyway,the developers like to code for 360 and don`t like the ps3... I`m sure you don`t agree with me,but...ask them yourself,you know i`m wright. That`s why the 360 has / will have 3`rd party exclusives.

 QFT!

Sony is only dependant on their 1st party this gen because 360 took some of their most beloved 3rd party games exclusivity. They knocked some reality into Sony and Sony is now thinking straight.

No, the RRoD was an inexcusable issue early on, however that doesn't mean I believe the PS3 or Wii deserve to be selling at their current levels either. All the consoles have some equally inexcusable faults.