[QUOTE="stizzal13"]
[QUOTE="CallOfDutyRulez"]
Stupid reasoning.
Pretty much every console owner agrees that Microsoft screwed up royally with the ONE. The specs suck, the architecture sucks, there probably won't be any games after the first 2 years considering Microsoft's track record,blah blah blah.
The thing is, hoping that Microsoft succeeds because "it'll keep SONY on its toes" isn't a good reason. You're only looking at it on one side. If Microsoft gets the same amount of marketshare as SONY does next gen, then it sends a message to Microsoft that they can continue with their crappy engineering decisions, their "no games after first 2 years" policy, online DRM, etc. etc.
Microsoft has to fail so that:
A) They learn their lesson and improve themselves next gen
B) They leave so that a more competent player joins the industry
CallOfDutyRulez
Well, first of all competition is important driver in innovation. Secondly, I have never seen someone use the word "suck" that many times in a post. Is the X1's hardware weaker than the PS4's? Sure, but gamers will not likely see a big difference in game for some time to come. Also, it is too rash to come to the conclusion that all of Microsoft's DRM policies would have resulted in a negative experience for gamers. We won't know for sure until such policies are implemented.You are right in saying that it if X1 keeps it market share, it may send the wrong signal to management. However, you have to consider the bad press they have been getting, as well. They do not necessarily have to lose market share to "learn a lesson." Lastly, Microsoft has been a very competent company within the gaming industry. In fact, financially they are in a better position to create competitive advantages such as the cloud, kinect, and exclusives. Only time will tell how those strategies pan out.
Considering that the ONE has no redeeming features compared to the PS4, Microsoft has outlived its usefulness in driving competition and innovation in the gaming industry. Their leave will have no consequence other than making lemming filth commit mass suicide. Microsoft is simply not needed anymore.Â
I'd agree partially. MS must feel some backlash from trying to impose those draconian features, so the message is out there to other companies as well. A digital outcry can't have the same impact than reducing profits or diminishing the user base.
But to scrap MS out of the market is too radical. Other companies tried to do the same things, in other ways, and they will continue to do so. It's only the consumer himself who's avoiding those policies from becoming standard.
I don't doubt Sony would try to do the same if the market was in the proper conditions (and this goes not only to the strict policies, but also for the other MS mistakes, like the weaker-than-competition hardware and such). If you think about it, Sony did already some of those things, like putting a yearly subscription to online gaming next-gen, and making the PS2 weaker (and thus, less costly) than it could be back then, when they almost had a monopoly during the PS1-PS2 transition.
The right reasons to make MS feel some colateral damage now is to pass the message to the entire market that we don't want subpar and overpriced hardware (compared to the competition of course) and anti-consumer practices, like the used-games DRM, always online, mandatory installs, Kinect 2.0, etc fiasco.
Log in to comment