If it wasnt for XBL, PSN would never be as it is now

If it wasn't for Sony, MS wouldn't have made an Xbox.

If it wasn't for Nintendo, Sony wouldn't have made a PS1.

If it wasn't for Sony, MS wouldn't have stepped up their game and made a better system.

Innovation and such goes both ways. These arguments are getting incredibly tiring.

In fact, if it wasn't for Pong, there would be no video games.

In fact, if it wasn't for Charles freaking Babbage, we wouldn't have computers or video games.

[QUOTE="Bazooka_4ME"]And if it wasn't for Sony and it's Playstation brand, MS wouldn't have a complete gaming division that popularized the market that made the 360 today.AdobeArtist

Turn back the clock; if it wasn't for Nintendo and it's gaming brand power during the 8bit and 16bit era, Sony wouldn't have created its own gaming division when previously the company was focused on media electronics (TVs, walkmans, CD players, etc...). And what got Nintendo into the business in the first place? That would be Atari.

[QUOTE="Bazooka_4ME"]And if it wasn't for Sony and it's Playstation brand, MS wouldn't have a complete gaming division that popularized the market that made the 360 today.todd2r

[QUOTE="AdobeArtist"]

[QUOTE="Bazooka_4ME"]And if it wasn't for Sony and it's Playstation brand, MS wouldn't have a complete gaming division that popularized the market that made the 360 today.Bazooka_4ME

Turn back the clock; if it wasn't for Nintendo and it's gaming brand power during the 8bit and 16bit era, Sony wouldn't have created its own gaming division when previously the company was focused on media electronics (TVs, walkmans, CD players, etc...). And what got Nintendo into the business in the first place? That would be Atari.

Yes this thread is primarily about the interconnected events of MS and Sony. But the historical reference is relevant in how it adds perspectve to your post, in so far as how various entities are always inspired or motivated by others, in a continuous chain in history. Those seen as "first" rarely are.

[QUOTE="Bazooka_4ME"]

[QUOTE="AdobeArtist"]

Turn back the clock; if it wasn't for Nintendo and it's gaming brand power during the 8bit and 16bit era, Sony wouldn't have created its own gaming division when previously the company was focused on media electronics (TVs, walkmans, CD players, etc...). And what got Nintendo into the business in the first place? That would be Atari.

AdobeArtist

Yes this thread is primarily about the interconnected events of MS and Sony. But the statement I was responding to needed a little historical perspective to outline how it's pointless to play the "who did what first" game, as it usually can be traced back far beyond the point originally being referenced.

pretty much. sony loves to copy ideas from competitors, probably because usually it utterly fails when they try to come up with anything "original"...like the embarrassment that is HOME :lol:

pretty much. sony loves to copy ideas from competitors, probably because usually it utterly fails when they try to come up with anything "original"...like the embarrassment that is HOME :lol:

KarateeeChop

pretty much. sony loves to copy ideas from competitors, probably because usually it utterly fails when they try to come up with anything "original"...like the embarrassment that is HOME :lol:

KarateeeChop

Any PS2 mult-player features at that time were developer implemented. Fact is, Sony hasn't done much of anything really innovative in the console gaming space this gen or last for that matter, it's been all MS imo.o0HAPPY0o

You know what sucks about Gold? I wanted to download the FIFA 12 demo on it yesterday and whaddya know It was a timed exclusive download for Gold members. So I went on PSN to check it out and it was on there for free.

I'm not going to sit here and defend Sony when they probably have locked out demos too but at least when I pay I get a bunch of goodies. I hate having to sacrifice a potential game (and god are there dozens) I could buy the ability to play multiplayer.

You know what sucks about Gold? I wanted to download the FIFA 12 demo on it yesterday and whaddya know It was a timed exclusive download for Gold members. So I went on PSN to check it out and it was on there for free.

I'm not going to sit here and defend Sony when they probably have locked out demos too but at least when I pay I get a bunch of goodies. I hate having to sacrifice a potential game (and god are there dozens) I could buy the ability to play multiplayer.

greenskittles

[QUOTE="greenskittles"]

You know what sucks about Gold? I wanted to download the FIFA 12 demo on it yesterday and whaddya know It was a timed exclusive download for Gold members. So I went on PSN to check it out and it was on there for free.

I'm not going to sit here and defend Sony when they probably have locked out demos too but at least when I pay I get a bunch of goodies. I hate having to sacrifice a potential game (and god are there dozens) I could buy the ability to play multiplayer.

tormentos

TC has just found out why competition in the marketplace is important. Whooo!

yea sony sees good ideas and rips them off and tries to make them better..

they have copied from nintendo all the way back to the snes... they usually succeeded

with xbox live theyre way of making it better was trophies.... overall though i think they fell a bit short on this one..

[QUOTE="o0HAPPY0o"]Any PS2 mult-player features at that time were developer implemented. Fact is, Sony hasn't done much of anything really innovative in the console gaming space this gen or last for that matter, it's been all MS imo.tormentos

you do know that the xbox controller is based off the Dreamcast controller. considering that the guy who worked on the dreamcast worked on the xbox, and how 99% of the orignal xbox controller looks like the Dreamcast. and so what, only sony is allowed to add rumble built in to a controller, even though N64 was the first to have rumble.

WAIT so because Sony apparently thought of a HD on the PS2, it means MS copied them, even though they did it first?

you do know that the xbox controller is based off the Dreamcast controller. considering that the guy who worked on the dreamcast worked on the xbox, and how 99% of the orignal xbox controller looks like the Dreamcast. and so what, only sony is allowed to add rumble built in to a controller, even though N64 was the first to have rumble.WAIT so because Sony apparently thought of a HD on the PS2, it means MS copied them, even though they did it first?gamer-adam1

[QUOTE="tormentos"][QUOTE="o0HAPPY0o"]Any PS2 mult-player features at that time were developer implemented. Fact is, Sony hasn't done much of anything really innovative in the console gaming space this gen or last for that matter, it's been all MS imo.gamer-adam1

you do know that the xbox controller is based off the Dreamcast controller. considering that the guy who worked on the dreamcast worked on the xbox, and how 99% of the orignal xbox controller looks like the Dreamcast. and so what, only sony is allowed to add rumble built in to a controller, even though N64 was the first to have rumble.

WAIT so because Sony apparently thought of a HD on the PS2, it means MS copied them, even though they did it first?

I LOVED the Dreamcast controller, so I am glad that took place.As far as copying, one could argue that Sony copied , or took a page out of Microsoft's book with the middle button being used to access the dashboard, turn off the system, etc., which was released on the 360 first. Now no one knows if Microsoft peaked their head in Sony's manufacturing offices to steal their design before release, but the 360 was released first, and it's controller uses those functions. Very minor though, but one shouldn't spout nonsense, when one clearly copies the other all the time. So I agree with you gameradam. godzillavskong

If it wasn't for PS1 and PS2, the Xbox and Xbox 360 wouldn't be as it is now.

[QUOTE="arto1223"]

If it wasn't for PS1 and PS2, the Xbox and Xbox 360 wouldn't be as it is now.

AncientDozer

Umm, no. The PS2 had online as well as consoles before it. Heck, you could conect your phone to the console to play online on the go. Just because these were not as popular then doesn't discount their existence.

[QUOTE="arto1223"]

If it wasn't for PS1 and PS2, the Xbox and Xbox 360 wouldn't be as it is now.

AncientDozer

Microsoft, however, brought online to the consoles.

No they didn't.

PSN is playing desperate catch-up with lackluster success and its only merit is that it's free.

If the PSN is lackluster, that doesn't bode well for Xbox Live. When two services are as similar as these two, yet one costs money when the other doesn't, I wouldn't be calling the free one "lackluster" to try to prove my point.

The problem with both services is being highly reliant on p2p online gaming. Until this changes dramatically, both systems will be subpar for playing online, on at least the games with no servers.

So Sony fanboys want me to believe that a free piece of **** car is better than a Ferrari, because its free?

Of course my analogy is exagerated, but it still illustrates my point.

So Sony fanboys want me to believe that a free piece of **** car is better than a Ferrari, because its free?

Of course my analogy is exagerated, but it still illustrates my point.

moistsandwich

Agreed. PSN was terrible during the ps2 era. I remember having to buy that add-on thing to play online and to dL everything was even worse than it is now somehow. If it wasn't for MS creating such a good platform through xbl, sony wouldn't have made so many changes to psn to catch up.

We can go on and on about who influenced whom; all the way down to when electricity was discovered. What really matters is that competition makes things better for the consumer. I'm certain that Sony is itching to charge for their service, it's just that XBL was already so established and well known that Sony needed to do something to gain an edge over Microsoft... which was make PSN free.

We can go on and on about who influenced whom; all the way down to when electricity was discovered. What really matters is that competition makes things better for the consumer. I'm certain that Sony is itching to charge for their service, it's just that XBL was already so established and well known that Sony needed to do something to gain an edge over Microsoft... which was make PSN free.

a55a55inx

I think so too.

I expect PS+ to be mandatory, or at least more mandatory (have more features stripped from PSN to make PS+ look far better), next gen. It's rather expensive to run a network completely out of pocket.

[QUOTE="Thuganomic05"][QUOTE="shahilsyed"] Dont you love paying for XBL? As again, if the two company were to invent a new feature, it definitely be XBL. AncientDozer

beautiful post.

i, too, never understand the reason cows spend so much time worrying about why the rest of the world pay for a superior service. but it sure is amusing to watch. :lol:

That is true. Gaming industry thrives off of healthy competition. Rarely do I ever feel like any company does anything innovative.

but... PSN doesn't charge access to my router so... yeah =D

[QUOTE="todd2r"][QUOTE="Bazooka_4ME"]And if it wasn't for Sony and it's Playstation brand, MS wouldn't have a complete gaming division that popularized the market that made the 360 today.Bazooka_4ME

Alot of people have been saying how PSN is better because it's free and such, fairenough. Do those people even know where PSN got all their features from? Thats right, XBL. XBL was invented much more before PSN was made. PSN took many things like trophies, in game XMB support, in game messaging, voice chat, join session in progress, recent players all from XBL. People have been saying how XBL is same as PSN, but do people know 70% of the features in PSN are plainly ripped-off from XBL? If one of the two services were to add something different and innovative, it will be xbox live. Also if XBL didnt exist, I wonder where PSN would of ripped their ideas from? People need to realise that XBL is far original, and that PSN is company that clones features from XBL. This is plain fact. Sorry cows but true.

shahilsyed

But that the good thing. Competition makes stuff better

[QUOTE="AncientDozer"][QUOTE="Thuganomic05"] Not really. I'd rather have that money to buy something else. But that's how it goes I suppose.KarateeeChop

beautiful post.

i, too, never understand the reason cows spend so much time worrying about why the rest of the world pay for a superior service. but it sure is amusing to watch. :lol:

beautiful post.

i, too, never understand the reason lems spend so much time worrying about cows worrying why the rest of the world pay for a superior service. but it sure is amusing to watch. :lol:

Agreed. PSN was terrible during the ps2 era. I remember having to buy that add-on thing to play online and to dL everything was even worse than it is now somehow. If it wasn't for MS creating such a good platform through xbl, sony wouldn't have made so many changes to psn to catch up.

tutt3r