Microsoft or SONY: Which one is more important to the console gaming industry?

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="Heirren"]

Of course it matters. Don't kid yourself. It is rather simple; as gamers we want games, right? Sony pushes games. Do I like all these games? Nope, but I sure am glad that money is being spend ON games. I bought a 360 very near launch, and if I had known that MS would ditch the original adoptors like they have, I would not have bought one based on principle.

Heirren

It boggles my mind how people defend MS. I was in the minority last gen, in prefering the xbox over the ps2, and now I feel somewhat duped in even buying a 360. MS has completely ditched the original product plan. Their fans are so head-over-heels blind it can be disgusting at times. WHO exactly is buying Kinect? Are people using it? Are gamers that post here lying saying they don't like it, when in reality they may have bought it? Because really, it affects everyone that bought a 360 beforehand.

When SEga released the Activator, gamers simply said, "that is stupid. get that out of my face." Sega took the hit and then continued releasing games--games within lines of what the product was supposed to produce.

True gamers are the most important :D ::self clap::
I would bet on Sony cause I think M$ does more things right than Sony, but also hurts the industry way more than Sony.

Well, hard to say really. MS are those who tryies to puch most kinds of new tech, andnone game software,they may fail, but they try (HD DVD, Kinect, WAY better online, achivements, and integration with alot of services first).

Sony however are the one of those two that pushes games in different genres, and have a fiar bit of focusof the player. Also does some Hardware things (Blu-Ray, that horrible motion thing that is best left forgotten, cross platform play).

Most people can't predict what happens if one of those falls out of the industry, nor which one is the most important one, we do not know what has happened on the buisness end, where things constantly evolve aswell.

I grew up before Sony or MS entered the console market, and to me, those are both newcommers, I have no real preference for either, but I would be sad to see either go. But which is most important? well Sony has a trackrecord of improving a little every time a new console comes out. MS has been here for 2 gens, and have evolved at an incredible pace. Mind you that the 360 and the PS3, are for all intends and purposes trading blows in every aspect, but Sony has been in the market for a relatively long time, and MS for 2 gens :S

Microsoft has had more successful business ventures this gen ... great for them. thats not neccessarily a good thing for us though.

[QUOTE="mems_1224"][QUOTE="kuraimen"] Sony takes risks in what matters: games. They have invested in new IPs that push traditional gameplay to evolve like LBP and Heavy Rain and they support them fully. Microsoft basically invests in what they know works like shooters and what the Wii showed that worked for casuals.Heirren

Of course it matters. Don't kid yourself. It is rather simple; as gamers we want games, right? Sony pushes games. Do I like all these games? Nope, but I sure am glad that money is being spend ON games. I bought a 360 very near launch, and if I had known that MS would ditch the original adoptors like they have, I would not have bought one based on principle.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="Heirren"]

Of course it matters. Don't kid yourself. It is rather simple; as gamers we want games, right? Sony pushes games. Do I like all these games? Nope, but I sure am glad that money is being spend ON games. I bought a 360 very near launch, and if I had known that MS would ditch the original adoptors like they have, I would not have bought one based on principle.

It boggles my mind how people defend MS. I was in the minority last gen, in prefering the xbox over the ps2, and now I feel somewhat duped in even buying a 360. MS has completely ditched the original product plan. Their fans are so head-over-heels blind it can be disgusting at times. WHO exactly is buying Kinect? Are people using it? Are gamers that post here lying saying they don't like it, when in reality they may have bought it? Because really, it affects everyone that bought a 360 beforehand.

When SEga released the Activator, gamers simply said, "that is stupid. get that out of my face." Sega took the hit and then continued releasing games--games within lines of what the product was supposed to produce.

[QUOTE="Heirren"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"] Lems apparently don't want games, they are just happy M$ rips them off.mems_1224

It boggles my mind how people defend MS. I was in the minority last gen, in prefering the xbox over the ps2, and now I feel somewhat duped in even buying a 360. MS has completely ditched the original product plan. Their fans are so head-over-heels blind it can be disgusting at times. WHO exactly is buying Kinect? Are people using it? Are gamers that post here lying saying they don't like it, when in reality they may have bought it? Because really, it affects everyone that bought a 360 beforehand.

When SEga released the Activator, gamers simply said, "that is stupid. get that out of my face." Sega took the hit and then continued releasing games--games within lines of what the product was supposed to produce.

Don't be silly. MS is obviously trying to take a piece of Nintendos pie, a pie that Nintendo will innovate further next gen, rendering MSs attempt a failure.

overall sony but for this gen ms.

sony didn't even look like they were going to bother to show up this gen until they were schooled so badly for the first 3 years the ps3 was out.

what would this gen have looked like if sony had no competition? haze 3 and lair 3 would have been in the 2011 goty running???

[QUOTE="NJGIANTSNY"]

none

we are

the gamers

Serioussamik

Seconded. Industry survives on demand.....demand comes from consumers.Firms are not important here.

Sony, they actually have games. Heil68

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="Heirren"]

Of course it matters. Don't kid yourself. It is rather simple; as gamers we want games, right? Sony pushes games. Do I like all these games? Nope, but I sure am glad that money is being spend ON games. I bought a 360 very near launch, and if I had known that MS would ditch the original adoptors like they have, I would not have bought one based on principle.

Heirren

It boggles my mind how people defend MS. I was in the minority last gen, in prefering the xbox over the ps2, and now I feel somewhat duped in even buying a 360. MS has completely ditched the original product plan. Their fans are so head-over-heels blind it can be disgusting at times. WHO exactly is buying Kinect? Are people using it? Are gamers that post here lying saying they don't like it, when in reality they may have bought it? Because really, it affects everyone that bought a 360 beforehand.

When SEga released the Activator, gamers simply said, "that is stupid. get that out of my face." Sega took the hit and then continued releasing games--games within lines of what the product was supposed to produce.

[QUOTE="Heirren"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"] Lems apparently don't want games, they are just happy M$ rips them off.Miketheman83

It boggles my mind how people defend MS. I was in the minority last gen, in prefering the xbox over the ps2, and now I feel somewhat duped in even buying a 360. MS has completely ditched the original product plan. Their fans are so head-over-heels blind it can be disgusting at times. WHO exactly is buying Kinect? Are people using it? Are gamers that post here lying saying they don't like it, when in reality they may have bought it? Because really, it affects everyone that bought a 360 beforehand.

When SEga released the Activator, gamers simply said, "that is stupid. get that out of my face." Sega took the hit and then continued releasing games--games within lines of what the product was supposed to produce.

cows want to act like a 6 year old 360 not being on the cutting edge of where development is taking place in games is the same thing as sony not even showing up with a decient library until 2009.

now the battlecry is 360 gotz no games! and i'm sitting here saying well no shyt sherlock it's 6 years old, what the hell do you expect?

[QUOTE="Heirren"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"] Lems apparently don't want games, they are just happy M$ rips them off.Miketheman83

It boggles my mind how people defend MS. I was in the minority last gen, in prefering the xbox over the ps2, and now I feel somewhat duped in even buying a 360. MS has completely ditched the original product plan. Their fans are so head-over-heels blind it can be disgusting at times. WHO exactly is buying Kinect? Are people using it? Are gamers that post here lying saying they don't like it, when in reality they may have bought it? Because really, it affects everyone that bought a 360 beforehand.

When SEga released the Activator, gamers simply said, "that is stupid. get that out of my face." Sega took the hit and then continued releasing games--games within lines of what the product was supposed to produce.

The sole intention of pushing bluray? I wouldn't go that far. Was the ps3 used as a vessel to help bluray win the hd disc based war? Of course, but the same was done with the ps2 w/dvd. And that isn't a bad thing. As somewhat of a tech enthusiast, I appreciate the fidelity and freedom of owning a film vs. streaming. Companies I'm sure would prefer a subscription based model as it ensures them control and ownership of the content. For this I applaud Sony, and I'm sure they took a rather large financial hit.

I started out a 360 gamer this gen. I didn't pick up a ps3 until 2009. I spoke with my wallet. $600 was too expensive for a home console--that was my opinion at the time. Things have changed though. Sony has been supporting the ps3 with games. That is the bottom line.

http://www.gamespot.com/sesame-street-once-upon-a-monster/videos/kinect-sesame-street-tv-6348368/?tag=updates%3Beditor%3Ball%3Bimg%3B8

MS has become cringe worthy.

Between those two, I'd say Sony. The original Playstation introduced the concept of Consoles being a multimedia device, not just something exclusively for gaming. Sony also made "Mature" Games a viable market.

Micrsoft set the standard for online gaming on consoles and was pretty much the reason why FPS on consoles took off (I Know there was Golden Eye,

Both are. Sony has been there for a long time. Microsoft has come out and obviously garnered much respect. So it's a tie. Both are capable of creating great hardware. In maybe 10 more years, after the coming generation, we could answer this question more accurately.

Sony. MS doesn't produce enough, and they aren't forward thinking enough to impact the games industry.

[QUOTE="mems_1224"][QUOTE="Heirren"]

It boggles my mind how people defend MS. I was in the minority last gen, in prefering the xbox over the ps2, and now I feel somewhat duped in even buying a 360. MS has completely ditched the original product plan. Their fans are so head-over-heels blind it can be disgusting at times. WHO exactly is buying Kinect? Are people using it? Are gamers that post here lying saying they don't like it, when in reality they may have bought it? Because really, it affects everyone that bought a 360 beforehand.

When SEga released the Activator, gamers simply said, "that is stupid. get that out of my face." Sega took the hit and then continued releasing games--games within lines of what the product was supposed to produce.

Don't be silly. MS is obviously trying to take a piece of Nintendos pie, a pie that Nintendo will innovate further next gen, rendering MSs attempt a failure.

Microsoft did not abandon the hardcore, they released one of the best third person shooters and best racing games of this gen a couple months ago. They are only trying to bring some new gamers in with the casual stuff which isn't bad in my opinion. You know how madly times I've had people over my house that are not hardcore gamers who waned to play but couldn't? It gives hardcore gamers girlfriends something to play also.Miketheman83

Why didn't you include Nintendo?

Sony because they do both consoles and games. I could also see how one could say MS with Windows.

Sony is the obvious answer, was this a serious question? Everyone (even the 360 owners) know that Sony is by far the superior company and console maker, only 360 fanboys in denile will answer MS. Mabey when MS can actually MAKEa system that has games and doesn't break on you then just mabey they could have a chance against Sony, but alas that hasn't happened and doesn't seem to be in the future either, the future of the Xbox brand is all about Kinect baby!

[QUOTE="Heirren"]

[QUOTE="mems_1224"]none of that matters when the best games out this gen are multiplats. and the two biggest exclusive franchises are on 360. and heavy rain didnt push anything to evolve. it was a decent game with tons of plotholes. LBP is held back by the fact that PSN sucks. sony has been playing catch up all gen.kuraimen

Of course it matters. Don't kid yourself. It is rather simple; as gamers we want games, right? Sony pushes games. Do I like all these games? Nope, but I sure am glad that money is being spend ON games. I bought a 360 very near launch, and if I had known that MS would ditch the original adoptors like they have, I would not have bought one based on principle.

Why didn't you include Nintendo?

clone01

Sony is the obvious answer, was this a serious question? Everyone (even the 360 owners) know that Sony is by far the superior company and console maker, only 360 fanboys in denile will answer MS. Mabey when MS can actually MAKEa system that has games and doesn't break on you then just mabey they could have a chance against Sony, but alas that hasn't happened and doesn't seem to be in the future either, the future of the Xbox brand is all about Kinect baby!

ShadowMoses900

[QUOTE="clone01"]

Why didn't you include Nintendo?

AtariKidX

Yet the Wii dominated, and both Sony and MS copied. Also, your grammar is f**king terrible.

Sony is the obvious answer, was this a serious question? Everyone (even the 360 owners) know that Sony is by far the superior company and console maker, only 360 fanboys in denile will answer MS. Mabey when MS can actually MAKEa system that has games and doesn't break on you then just mabey they could have a chance against Sony, but alas that hasn't happened and doesn't seem to be in the future either, the future of the Xbox brand is all about Kinect baby!

ShadowMoses900

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

Sony is the obvious answer, was this a serious question? Everyone (even the 360 owners) know that Sony is by far the superior company and console maker, only 360 fanboys in denile will answer MS. Mabey when MS can actually MAKEa system that has games and doesn't break on you then just mabey they could have a chance against Sony, but alas that hasn't happened and doesn't seem to be in the future either, the future of the Xbox brand is all about Kinect baby!

delta3074

Ok you keep telling yourself that, enjoy your Sesame Street...

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="Heirren"]

Of course it matters. Don't kid yourself. It is rather simple; as gamers we want games, right? Sony pushes games. Do I like all these games? Nope, but I sure am glad that money is being spend ON games. I bought a 360 very near launch, and if I had known that MS would ditch the original adoptors like they have, I would not have bought one based on principle.

delta3074

[QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="kuraimen"] Lems apparently don't want games, they are just happy M$ rips them off.mems_1224

Yes, with walls of text, I wish he would paragraph because it would be esier to read :P

Overall? Sony.

This gen? Microsoft.

Yes, with walls of text, I wish he would paragraph because it would be esier to read :P

ShadowMoses900

So you'd rather point out use of paragraph rather than refute legitimate points?

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="Heirren"]

Of course it matters. Don't kid yourself. It is rather simple; as gamers we want games, right? Sony pushes games. Do I like all these games? Nope, but I sure am glad that money is being spend ON games. I bought a 360 very near launch, and if I had known that MS would ditch the original adoptors like they have, I would not have bought one based on principle.

delta3074

I rather play normal games I enjoy than Kinect "games". If that's living in the past fine by me! For me sony innovated with one game: LBP more than MS did in the whole gen by taking advantage of the motion control fad and putting 500 million in ads for a device that has like one AA game on Metacritic. In fact, sadly, the thing M$ innovated in more was in charging for online P2P play :(, and no gamer with a brain thinks that's good for gaming. If the future is M$ then the future sucks for real gamers.

and no gamer with a brain thinks that's good for gaming. If the future is M$ then the future sucks for real gamers.

kuraimen

Spoken like a true idiot fanboy.

[QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="kuraimen"] Lems apparently don't want games, they are just happy M$ rips them off.kuraimen

I rather play normal games I enjoy than Kinect "games". If that's living in the past fine by me! For me sony innovated with one game: LBP more than MS did in the whole gen by taking advantage of the motion control fad and putting 500 million in ads for a device that has like one AA game on Metacritic. In fact, sadly, the thing M$ innovated in more was in charging for online P2P play :(, and no gamer with a brain thinks that's good for gaming. If the future is M$ then the future sucks for real gamers.

but if it wasn't for MS then console online would not be what it is today.delta3074

[QUOTE="delta3074"]but if it wasn't for MS then console online would not be what it is today.kuraimen

Everything else would be pretty much the same.kuraimen

[QUOTE="kuraimen"] Everything else would be pretty much the same.delta3074

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="delta3074"]but if it wasn't for MS then console online would not be what it is today.mems_1224

[QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="kuraimen"] Everything else would be pretty much the same.kuraimen

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="delta3074"]but if it wasn't for MS then console online would not be what it is today.mems_1224

lol yes enjoy talking to little kids online, that's what the "Social experince" is all about right? Yep $60 is a great deal for P2P servers and ads! Since you lems love to downplay the price so much by saying "it's only $5 a month" (that strategy is bad btw, people who think like that often go into debt) so why don't we do the opposite then? Let's do it the other way! $60 over the course of 3 years adds up to $180, that already makes the 360 the most expensive console on the market, and the best part is that it keeps growing!

So ya that's TOTALLY worth it for cross game chat and to be able to talk trash to little kids (360 target audience)just to play on P2P servers with ads! Where as PSN has more games with dedicated servers and a mature community with no ads and all for FREE! Yep you sure do get what you pay for with Xbox Live huh? BTW I play online alot with PSN all the time and I still don't see the difference with Xbox Live, can you please explain how Live makes the online gameplay better? Oh never mind it doesn't.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="delta3074"]i don't think so, PSN on the Ps3 was an afterthought on SONY's part,Like rumble, Ps3 probably wouldn't have online if SONY didn't think it needed it to compete with MSdelta3074

It works the same as Live in what matters which is playing games since the P2P connection works basically the same. It has some extra features as well as PSN has features Live doesn't have. But to claim MS is the best innovator for a couple of different features pfft please! Like I said the only significant addition they did was to charge for things they shouldn't be charging for in the first place.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="delta3074"]i don't think so, PSN on the Ps3 was an afterthought on SONY's part,Like rumble, Ps3 probably wouldn't have online if SONY didn't think it needed it to compete with MSdelta3074

The only real feature that Live has over PSN is party chat, which isa gimmick. The Live interface sucks and is more sutied to a younger audince with giant cartoon charecters and ads. It is a little more integrated with faster updates (but that's free for silver members) and universel invite system. But it's not like all updates are super slow and it's not that hard just to ask someone to invite you in a game.

So if that is worth wasting your money on then good for you, I however like to save money and am well aware of what a rip off is. Glad I was rasied to be a more criticle thinker...

[QUOTE="mems_1224"][QUOTE="kuraimen"] I agree no one in their right mind would have imagined someone could charge for P2P online and get away with it. Everything else would be pretty much the same.kuraimen