MS responds to Hirai - can't find a thread for it:
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="IronBass"][QUOTE="Eyezonmii"] WTH are you on about, you claim sony is living in the past, yet your claims are as good as theres....they PREDICT the 360 will end up the same fate as the Xbox, considering the track record with MS. As for your silly comment about the PS3 10 year cycle....hasn't even been 3 years and you already going on about sales and user base..LOL. Make no sence, considering the PS3 userbase, sales and software have improved and knowing the 09 line up it will just get better, the PS2 is still alive, and the 10 year life cycle sounds believable...considering the media they are using. Anyway you look at it, Saying Sony is out of the game THIS EARLY, is just being disillusional. Nice hate, post..btw. EyezonmiiWhere did I say the PS3 won't have a 10 years cycle? :| I just said - RIGHT NOW - it doesn't have what's needed. And where did I say Sony were out of the game? And what exactly of my claims is false? I simply said that, if we take market appeal, position on the industry, profitability and sales, there was no way for Sony to be leading. That would be Nintendo. I've never said Sony was out, or that the PS3 will die soon, or that they will never lead again :| "Where did I say the PS3 won't have a 10 years cycle? I just said - RIGHT NOW - it doesn't have what's needed." AARGGGH, so now we do a 180...cute. You implied sony doesn't have what it takes for the 10 year cycle with the issues you stated, when those ISSUES have INCREASED and IMPROVED dramatically.....like i said you make no sense and comes off as a hate post..which i figured. Stop thinking Sony imply they will lead some time soon, they know they can't....the think long term and considering what the PS3 offers and its lineups...they don't look wrong. All they need is a good price drop and bang. You didn't say it, perhaps but implied it. Don't have to get defensive since i proved your argument was flawed. No you didn't, YOU got defensive and have the flawed argument. MS has NONE of the problems that caused them to pull the plug early on the Xbox, and Sony has none of the reasons that caused the PS1 and PS2 to be supported for so long, and in fact has inherited most of the reasons the Xbox was killed off. Using those past trends only applies when the mitigating factors are the same. The factors actually ARE a lot the same...except for the brands have flipped. The Xbox brand is more successful and cost effective to make without any roadblocks to further cost cutting(like the PS2), while the PS3 is more expensive, less successful, and has severe roadblocks to dropping the price in line with the competition(that built in HDD is gonna hurt them big time towards the end of the gen)...all of that are problems it has in common with the first Xbox.
Aaron Greenberg: "This sounds like an old hardware company that's comfortable with its market position. That complacent attitude is out of touch with where the industry and consumer is today,"yeah, we built cheap trash, people buy it cuz its cheap we pay untold fortunes to have exclusive download content and so we can brag about having a better online platform even if we don't have a game that supports 40 players lag free, much less 60, but hey, the press kiss our @$$ saying we have the best one so we do... men at least they stop with the crappy speech "we have the most powerful system" so they drop that line, how long till they drop this one? i remember in the 1st year of the Xbox "we're selling as much as PS2", "we're gonna win", "our dvd-play is better", "people will buy hte xbox cuz of the best online" stuff like that, last time i check they sold like 24 million xbox ww while the ps2 was +120million if i'm not mistaken the only reason why the 360 is ahead is $$$$$$ is cheaper and MS pays tons of money for stuff to get an edge, i don't remember sony doing that to win with the ps2. kinda reminds me of the Internet Explorer when the internet "showed up" MS said that's nothing one day they woke up it was huge, it toke a ton of $$$ to shove the IE down peoples throats. men tell me what games on the top 15 360 games of all time here on gamespot are NOT ON PS3 and/or PC? and the graphic comparison, lol @ that just remember seeing spider-man 3 (crappy game i now) said to be better on 360 and you look at those images on the graphic comparison you see the PS3 version with much bigger draw distance, and OBLIVION ????????? "WE ACTUALLY PREFER THE LOW REZ VERSION OF THE 360" what a joke...
"This generation won't be won over just hardware specs, but who can out-innovate when it comes to online and software. This is the kind of stuff that's in our DNA, and frankly moves the console war onto our home court."
Nomad0404
[QUOTE="Nomad0404"]Aaron Greenberg: "This sounds like an old hardware company that's comfortable with its market position. That complacent attitude is out of touch with where the industry and consumer is today,"yeah, we built cheap trash, people buy it cuz its cheap we pay untold fortunes to have exclusive download content and so we can brag about having a better online platform even if we don't have a game that supports 40 players lag free, much less 60, but hey, the press kiss our @$$ saying we have the best one so we do... men at least they stop with the crappy speech "we have the most powerful system" so they drop that line, how long till they drop this one? i remember in the 1st year of the Xbox "we're selling as much as PS2", "we're gonna win", "our dvd-play is better", "people will buy hte xbox cuz of the best online" stuff like that, last time i check they sold like 24 million xbox ww while the ps2 was +120million if i'm not mistaken the only reason why the 360 is ahead is $$$$$$ is cheaper and MS pays tons of money for stuff to get an edge, i don't remember sony doing that to win with the ps2. kinda reminds me of the Internet Explorer when the internet "showed up" MS said that's nothing one day they woke up it was huge, it toke a ton of $$$ to shove the IE down peoples throats. men tell me what games on the top 15 360 games of all time here on gamespot are NOT ON PS3 and/or PC? and the graphic comparison, lol @ that just remember seeing spider-man 3 (crappy game i now) said to be better on 360 and you look at those images on the graphic comparison you see the PS3 version with much bigger draw distance, and OBLIVION ????????? "WE ACTUALLY PREFER THE LOW REZ VERSION OF THE 360" what a joke...
"This generation won't be won over just hardware specs, but who can out-innovate when it comes to online and software. This is the kind of stuff that's in our DNA, and frankly moves the console war onto our home court."
Kane04
Paragraphs are your friend.
Sony paid publishers last gen for exclusivity. Uh, maybe you have heard of game called GTA (timed exclusivity)? The one point you are missing is that MS, or Sony for that matter, can offer up all kinds of money to a company for exclusivity, but in the end the publisher is the one who has to agree to it. So placing the blame at MS's feet this gen (or Sony's feet last gen) is misplaced.
Any game is subject to lag, there is no such thing as "lag free". Both MS and Sony would be stupid to make that guarantee.
The rest of your argument/rant is just a garbled mess. The only thing I would warn you about is making graphic comparisions for multi-plats for the 360/PS3. Yes, Oblivion supposedly looked better on the PS3, but not by the massive margin that you imply. Oblivion should have looked better on the PS3, given the extra time developers had to tweak it.
No you didn't, YOU got defensive and have the flawed argument. MS has NONE of the problems that caused them to pull the plug early on the Xbox, and Sony has none of the reasons that caused the PS1 and PS2 to be supported for so long, and in fact has inherited most of the reasons the Xbox was killed off. Using those past trends only applies when the mitigating factors are the same. The factors actually ARE a lot the same...except for the brands have flipped. The Xbox brand is more successful and cost effective to make without any roadblocks to further cost cutting(like the PS2), while the PS3 is more expensive, less successful, and has severe roadblocks to dropping the price in line with the competition(that built in HDD is gonna hurt them big time towards the end of the gen)...all of that are problems it has in common with the first Xbox. Steppy_76'Talk about flawed..
Do you even know why MS had to cut the xbox and move on? Based on your entire post above, you don't.
Sony paid publishers last gen for exclusivity. Uh, maybe you have heard of game called GTA (timed exclusivity)? WardCleaver02Really? Proof? I always thought it was because GTA was a PS game since the original. And I'm not talking about the sandbox version. I am talking about the overhead view, original, GTA.
'Talk about flawed..[QUOTE="Steppy_76"]No you didn't, YOU got defensive and have the flawed argument. MS has NONE of the problems that caused them to pull the plug early on the Xbox, and Sony has none of the reasons that caused the PS1 and PS2 to be supported for so long, and in fact has inherited most of the reasons the Xbox was killed off. Using those past trends only applies when the mitigating factors are the same. The factors actually ARE a lot the same...except for the brands have flipped. The Xbox brand is more successful and cost effective to make without any roadblocks to further cost cutting(like the PS2), while the PS3 is more expensive, less successful, and has severe roadblocks to dropping the price in line with the competition(that built in HDD is gonna hurt them big time towards the end of the gen)...all of that are problems it has in common with the first Xbox. PoppaGamer
Do you even know why MS had to cut the xbox and move on? Based on your entire post above, you don't.
Yeah, they owned none of the IP of the original Xbox. They bought the GPU from Nvidia at prices that Nvidia set, and didn't get the advantage of when it was cheaper to manufacture...They were overpaying for the XCPU the entire gen, and Nvidia finally stopped making them forcing MS to have to abandon the Xbox in mid 2005. You also have the standard HDD the Xbox required that kept them from being able to reduce costs to the level sony did once the machines got down below 200 bucks. No matter how long things went, the HDD drive in the Xbox was always going to cost them 50 bucks or more. In short the cost of the Xbox could never get low enough to allow it to match PS2 price drops below 200 bucks without alway losing a ton of money. Judging from YOUR response you have no clue as to why the Xbox was dropped and why the PS2 was supported for so long.MS owns all the IP of the 360(the cpu and gpu designs), and has no standard HDD with a fixed base cost hampering the profitablility of the system. The PS3 is saddled with that standard HDD, and isn't moving the hardware or software numbers that made the PS2 supported for so long. So PLEASE, tell me how I'm wrong and you are correct.
[QUOTE="WardCleaver02"]Sony paid publishers last gen for exclusivity. Uh, maybe you have heard of game called GTA (timed exclusivity)? PoppaGamerReally? Proof? I always thought it was because GTA was a PS game since the original. And I'm not talking about the sandbox version. I am talking about the overhead view, original, GTA. Oh, I see now...you don't bother actually learning about topics, you assume. Sony had a contract with rockstar(which is why we never saw GTA III and VC release separeately for the Xbox...they got around the contract by releasing them together). When the contract expired is when we finally saw San Andreas released on the Xbox well after the PS2 version released.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment