But Sheep not only had Wii (Which had some great first party games) but they also have the DS (Which had some great first and 3rd party games)Sheep... but they didn't seem to notice at all.
fadersdream
This topic is locked from further discussion.
But Sheep not only had Wii (Which had some great first party games) but they also have the DS (Which had some great first and 3rd party games)Sheep... but they didn't seem to notice at all.
fadersdream
I would say lems and sheep equally. Casual became their king, with one dropping exclusives to practically zip.ispeakfactThis is the real answer!
Lems because Microsoft screwed them over by focusing on Kinect, so all Lems got is Halo, Gears and Forza.
Also Microsoft is forcing Lems to pay £40 to play online. They are basically paying for nothing.
But Sheep not only had Wii (Which had some great first party games) but they also have the DS (Which had some great first and 3rd party games) That would be great if the Wii played DS games but it doesn't. Handheld gaming is irrelevant when discussing the main "system wars". Sure the DS is great, but the DS being great doesn't save the Wii from being terribad since they're 2 completely different systems. Just because someone owns a Wii doesn't mean they own a DS. Handheld gaming should always be considered a completely separate entity from console gaming. ANYONE can own a DS whether they have a Wii, 360, PS3, or PC. Most people don't stay "loyal" from which console they own to their handheld as well. If so, that's just fanboyish and sad.[QUOTE="fadersdream"]
Sheep... but they didn't seem to notice at all.
Nintendo_Ownes7
But Sheep not only had Wii (Which had some great first party games) but they also have the DS (Which had some great first and 3rd party games) So we're including PSP in this now? What about Live Arcade? Even so, I felt the Handhelds really didn't do anything to move the genre forward. More people can name facebook apps than can name 3DS games. Quality Vs. Quantity. If someone says there were this many games then somebody says how many were good? If someone says there was this one great game somebody says why so few? . Rules get too ambiguous here.[QUOTE="fadersdream"]
Sheep... but they didn't seem to notice at all.
Nintendo_Ownes7
I would say Sheep and Lems.
i change my answer to hermits. they miss out on playing games with friends locally and stay in their rooms all day.ZumaJones07>Got 1080P games >Free multiplayer better than XBL >Entire genres that are exclusive (Halo Wars and Civ Rev are so watered down compared to real strategy games that they don't count) >The highest quality exclusives >Significantly shorter loading times in almost all games >Shooter controls that don't need annoying aim-assist >No aim-assist in any multiplayer game Sure.
true story.
the other day my buddy rented starhawk and was all excited to play it.
he puts it in and it asked him for his online pass or cash so he could play it.
my question to sw is, why does ms get called out for charging for online yet sony does the same stuff and nobody acts like it is any big deal?
The big difference is if you buy a PS3 game new and a 360 game new, you can only play the PS3 game online without extra fees.true story.
the other day my buddy rented starhawk and was all excited to play it.
he puts it in and it asked him for his online pass or cash so he could play it.
my question to sw is, why does ms get called out for charging for online yet sony does the same stuff and nobody acts like it is any big deal?
Riverwolf007
true story.
the other day my buddy rented starhawk and was all excited to play it.
he puts it in and it asked him for his online pass or cash so he could play it.
my question to sw is, why does ms get called out for charging for online yet sony does the same stuff and nobody acts like it is any big deal?
Riverwolf007
Because PS3 fans like DRM
The big difference is if you buy a PS3 game new and a 360 game new, you can only play the PS3 game online without extra fees.charging for online play is charging.[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]
true story.
the other day my buddy rented starhawk and was all excited to play it.
he puts it in and it asked him for his online pass or cash so he could play it.
my question to sw is, why does ms get called out for charging for online yet sony does the same stuff and nobody acts like it is any big deal?
Bigboi500
for those of us that rent games there seems to be little difference.
The big difference is if you buy a PS3 game new and a 360 game new, you can only play the PS3 game online without extra fees.charging for online play is charging.[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]
[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]
true story.
the other day my buddy rented starhawk and was all excited to play it.
he puts it in and it asked him for his online pass or cash so he could play it.
my question to sw is, why does ms get called out for charging for online yet sony does the same stuff and nobody acts like it is any big deal?
Riverwolf007
for those of us that rent games there seems to be little difference.
For those of us that buy games new, there is a big difference.[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]
true story.
the other day my buddy rented starhawk and was all excited to play it.
he puts it in and it asked him for his online pass or cash so he could play it.
my question to sw is, why does ms get called out for charging for online yet sony does the same stuff and nobody acts like it is any big deal?
Raymundo_Manuel
Because PS3 fans like DRM
Yeah man, it's not like any 360 games have onlines passes aswell as require a gold fee. Silly Cows :lol:but it has teh crossgamechat , so its worth the payment :DWell, 360 owners got shafted hardest IMO.
Out of PC, PS3, and 360 the 360 uses the least dedicated servers for its AAA games. That means the actual nuts and bolts of multiplayer is the lowest quality on Xbox. And you pay for it too. They were also forced to pay for DLC everyone else got for free because Microsoft thought they should (COD4, Left 4 Dead, TF2).
Owning a 360 and being proud of it means you're proud to have bought into a closed platform where the company running it has no problem going between you and the developer, taking free content the developer wanted to give to you, and then slapping a price sticker on it. Lemmings have it worst, just as hermits have it best.
Myounage
[QUOTE="Raymundo_Manuel"][QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]
true story.
the other day my buddy rented starhawk and was all excited to play it.
he puts it in and it asked him for his online pass or cash so he could play it.
my question to sw is, why does ms get called out for charging for online yet sony does the same stuff and nobody acts like it is any big deal?
BibiMaghoo
Because PS3 fans like DRM
Yeah man, it's not like any 360 games have onlines passes aswell as require a gold fee. Silly Cows :lol: lol, you are totally right but still charging is charging.i can totally see why it is a stupid argument and all but at the very base the accusation has always been ms holding multiplayer hostage and i see little difference in both companies tactics of pay us money or you don't get to pay. (ms just charges more)
also i have never been against online passes because i think devs get screwed pretty badly over the used market but once again i have to say that once all is said and done charging is charging.
but it has teh crossgamechat , so its worth the payment :Dlol, you call it teh crossgame chat while i call it grabbing four friends and being able to squad up drag them from a game of bf43 to a game of co-op halo to a team match in dirt 3 all the while never breaking up the party and keeping us all on the same side and getting in more actual game time in as opposed to messing around joining and rejoining each other.[QUOTE="Myounage"]
Well, 360 owners got shafted hardest IMO.
Out of PC, PS3, and 360 the 360 uses the least dedicated servers for its AAA games. That means the actual nuts and bolts of multiplayer is the lowest quality on Xbox. And you pay for it too. They were also forced to pay for DLC everyone else got for free because Microsoft thought they should (COD4, Left 4 Dead, TF2).
Owning a 360 and being proud of it means you're proud to have bought into a closed platform where the company running it has no problem going between you and the developer, taking free content the developer wanted to give to you, and then slapping a price sticker on it. Lemmings have it worst, just as hermits have it best.
AmnesiaHaze
maybe it is silly to care about it but i like it and makes gaming so much simpler, faster and streamlined.
the sw myth that we are talking about cute purses and boys while we all play a bunch of seperate games is nothing but bullshyt.
Yeah man, it's not like any 360 games have onlines passes aswell as require a gold fee. Silly Cows :lol: lol, you are totally right but still charging is charging.[QUOTE="BibiMaghoo"][QUOTE="Raymundo_Manuel"]
Because PS3 fans like DRM
Riverwolf007
i can totally see why it is a stupid argument and all but at the very base the accusation has always been ms holding multiplayer hostage and i see little difference in both companies tactics of pay us money or you don't get to pay. (ms just charges more)
also i have never been against online passes because i think devs get screwed pretty badly over the used market but once again i have to say that once all is said and done charging is charging.
I think it's usefull when discussing this to remember that third party publishers introduced online passes to both consoles. Even so, such a thing has existed for an age on PC with CD keys. With a game that uses dedicated servers for an online component, I have no issue with it at all. With a single player game, or a game that uses p2p servers, I find it greedy and loathe the practice, but ultimatly understandable. They are after your money after all. I don't think online passes can be used in any way though, to balance the cost of XBL against the first party online pass games of the PS3. Each game purchased new has that pass, so it is only an additional cost if buying the game used. This applies to the 360 also, but still carries the cost of live on top of it.Of course there is a difference. Charging is charging?
Sony is charging for the game, as is anyone who is selling a game. The online pass is there way of charging people for the game, as a used game buyer or renter hasn't bought anything from them.
I don't like online passes, nor do I particularly like any of the tactics used by these companies to attack used games, but the online pass is pretty easy to justify. That being said, games that use p2p online such as Uncharted 3 shouldn't be using these things, as the online isn't even a service at that point.
[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]lol, you are totally right but still charging is charging.[QUOTE="BibiMaghoo"] Yeah man, it's not like any 360 games have onlines passes aswell as require a gold fee. Silly Cows :lol: BibiMaghoo
i can totally see why it is a stupid argument and all but at the very base the accusation has always been ms holding multiplayer hostage and i see little difference in both companies tactics of pay us money or you don't get to pay. (ms just charges more)
also i have never been against online passes because i think devs get screwed pretty badly over the used market but once again i have to say that once all is said and done charging is charging.
I think it's usefull when discussing this to remember that third party publishers introduced online passes to both consoles. Even so, such a thing has existed for an age on PC with CD keys. With a game that uses dedicated servers for an online component, I have no issue with it at all. With a single player game, or a game that uses p2p servers, I find it greedy and loathe the practice, but ultimatly understandable. They are after your money after all. I don't think online passes can be used in any way though, to balance the cost of XBL against the first party online pass games of the PS3. Each game purchased new has that pass, so it is only an additional cost if buying the game used. This applies to the 360 also, but still carries the cost of live on top of it. yeah but i am bringing the whole thing up because it specifically affected my buddy when i went to hang out with him a few days ago.this is not one of the normal sw hypothetical arguments.
this was a real world kind of thing in which my buddy was all hyped to play starhawk rented it and could not play it.
i think sw has a tendency to give hypothetical doom and gloom shyt a priority while ignoring actual real world consequences.
in the situation that i ran into the entirety of the problem was here was a game sitting in the system and to play it it required a fee to be paid.
ms being worse and xbl being a rip was not a part of it, no matter what sort of gyp xbl is we were sitting there with an unplayable game.
i think it is justified also but when we look at big games with passes i notice a pile of sony 1st party does it while what is left of the ms 1st party (lol) does not do it.Of course there is a difference. Charging is charging?
Sony is charging for the game, as is anyone who is selling a game. The online pass is there way of charging people for the game, as a used game buyer or renter hasn't bought anything from them.
I don't like online passes, nor do I particularly like any of the tactics used by these companies to attack used games, but the online pass is pretty easy to justify. That being said, games that use p2p online such as Uncharted 3 shouldn't be using these things, as the online isn't even a service at that point.
Pug-Nasty
does ms get any credit for this or are they still just as evil while we turn a blind eye to resistence, uncharted, socom, ratchet and clank, twisted metal and whichever else that are all huge titles for sony and all have passes.
(also i'm just doing this from memory so if some of those are not 1st party then my bad just point them out)
[QUOTE="Raymundo_Manuel"][QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]
true story.
the other day my buddy rented starhawk and was all excited to play it.
he puts it in and it asked him for his online pass or cash so he could play it.
my question to sw is, why does ms get called out for charging for online yet sony does the same stuff and nobody acts like it is any big deal?
BibiMaghoo
Because PS3 fans like DRM
Yeah man, it's not like any 360 games have onlines passes aswell as require a gold fee. Silly Cows :lol:You're right, I should have specified fanboys given the fact that it is Sony themselves pushing the DRM.
[QUOTE="AmnesiaHaze"]
[QUOTE="Myounage"]
Well, 360 owners got shafted hardest IMO.
Out of PC, PS3, and 360 the 360 uses the least dedicated servers for its AAA games. That means the actual nuts and bolts of multiplayer is the lowest quality on Xbox. And you pay for it too. They were also forced to pay for DLC everyone else got for free because Microsoft thought they should (COD4, Left 4 Dead, TF2).
Owning a 360 and being proud of it means you're proud to have bought into a closed platform where the company running it has no problem going between you and the developer, taking free content the developer wanted to give to you, and then slapping a price sticker on it. Lemmings have it worst, just as hermits have it best.
but it has teh crossgamechat , so its worth the payment :Dlol, you call it teh crossgame chat while i call it grabbing four friends and being able to squad up drag them from a game of bf43 to a game of co-op halo to a team match in dirt 3 all the while never breaking up the party and keeping us all on the same side and getting in more actual game time in as opposed to messing around joining and rejoining each other.maybe it is silly to care about it but i like it and makes gaming so much simpler, faster and streamlined.
the sw myth that we are talking about cute purses and boys while we all play a bunch of seperate games is nothing but bullshyt.
- i for example never liked to use mic when playing games , i also dont plan starting to use it anytime soon - i prefer games that not always matchmake me in the same team with friends , i often enjoy even more playing against them - at the end its not even that hard at all to invite friends into games with regular invites i can understand that you see some value in that though if it makes your playing experience more comfortable , but imo there is no justification to pay that much for such features , microsoft could easily offer it for free without getting broke , the fact they didnt just shows how much they value their customers , also charging for dlc the devs give away for free elsewhere speaks for itself[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]lol, you call it teh crossgame chat while i call it grabbing four friends and being able to squad up drag them from a game of bf43 to a game of co-op halo to a team match in dirt 3 all the while never breaking up the party and keeping us all on the same side and getting in more actual game time in as opposed to messing around joining and rejoining each other.[QUOTE="AmnesiaHaze"] but it has teh crossgamechat , so its worth the payment :D
AmnesiaHaze
maybe it is silly to care about it but i like it and makes gaming so much simpler, faster and streamlined.
the sw myth that we are talking about cute purses and boys while we all play a bunch of seperate games is nothing but bullshyt.
- i for example never liked to use mic when playing games , i also dont plan starting to use it anytime soon - i prefer games that not always matchmake me in the same team with friends , i often enjoy even more playing against them - at the end its not even that hard at all to invite friends into games with regular invites i can understand that you see some value in that though if it makes your playing experience more comfortable , but imo there is no justification to pay that much for such features , microsoft could easily offer it for free without getting broke , the fact they didnt just shows how much they value their customers , also charging for dlc the devs give away for free elsewhere speaks for itselfwell dude... everything in the long run is a rip off.hell, if i wanted to boil the water out of the creek behind my house i could stop getting ripped off by the water company.
(btw, those ****ers don't even read the meter anymore, they just send a bill based on what month it is and what typical water usage is and what they claim is typical useage is a load of crap)
i think it is justified also but when we look at big games with passes i notice a pile of sony 1st party does it while what is left of the ms 1st party (lol) does not do it.[QUOTE="Pug-Nasty"]
Of course there is a difference. Charging is charging?
Sony is charging for the game, as is anyone who is selling a game. The online pass is there way of charging people for the game, as a used game buyer or renter hasn't bought anything from them.
I don't like online passes, nor do I particularly like any of the tactics used by these companies to attack used games, but the online pass is pretty easy to justify. That being said, games that use p2p online such as Uncharted 3 shouldn't be using these things, as the online isn't even a service at that point.
Riverwolf007
does ms get any credit for this or are they still just as evil while we turn a blind eye to resistence, uncharted, socom, ratchet and clank, twisted metal and whichever else that are all huge titles for sony and all have passes.
(also i'm just doing this from memory so if some of those are not 1st party then my bad just point them out)
Well, I don't think it's completely justified, since players are left with no way to quality check an online game before purcahsing it unless there is a demo, which there usually isn't.
The problem with all these attempts from the games industry to secure more money for their work is their level of service is usually a hair above dogsh!t.
On solution to these online codes could very well be a few hours of playtime before the code is needed. They could tie it to the console itself rather than online account.
[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]
All fanboys got shafted this gen because they were too stupid by being fanboys.
Though I will say that 360 fanboys are definately the most upset and jealous.
OB-47
That's only at this stage. Remember Sony fans in the first few years?
Sheep got shafted pretty hard the whole gen, Lems started getting shafted pretty hard since 09 and Cows got shafted 2006-2008.[QUOTE="OB-47"][QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]
All fanboys got shafted this gen because they were too stupid by being fanboys.
Though I will say that 360 fanboys are definately the most upset and jealous.
dracolich55
That's only at this stage. Remember Sony fans in the first few years?
Sheep got shafted pretty hard the whole gen, Lems started getting shafted pretty hard since 09 and Cows got shafted 2006-2008. Agree with this, nice to see Nintendo making up for it with the WiiU and 3DS.I feel it's lems since MS shifted focus from core to casual Kinect(lol) garbage. Heil68No because MS has managed,to expand to the casual demographs with Kinect but still keeps getting core games from third party devs. Sony couldn't do this with Move(lol)
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment