[QUOTE="goblaa"]I have to agree wit you there, nicely said! I dunno .. the reverse i think happened already ... "Better than Halo" ... that was to get you to read the article. the other comparisons to the other games which were also good seems like he was stretching put this game up there on par with them. Halo must have something if an IGN reviewer is going out of their way to compare a sports title to it. btw TC i cannot relate Fallout 3 or Gears to any sports titles... Use the Cabela titles and see if you get the same idea of what this article is getting at..It's certainly going to have a lot more cultural impact than halo 3.
UnholyUser
NetFink's forum posts
I haven't posted in ages so on this topic i'm gonna throw in Phantasy Star Online Ep 1 and 2
Spent just as much time sitting listening to the BGM's in the menu before logging in. :D
i can't believe people are actually arguing Sony's side of this saying the DLC shouldn't come out if it isn't for everyone.
it's time for some of you to do your research re: PS1/PS2 and the pre PS1 days when Sony nearly bankrupted Nintendo intentionally. OR you can just keep arguing and look like hypocrites...
IMO Sony is reaping what they sowed for many years over 3 generations of console wars. They are no strangers to the money game - they used to buy and sell developer 'loyalty' like crazy. What's the big problem this gen? Sony is relying on actual loyalty, of which there is little in an industry that knows Sony's history. Even their most trusted compats, like Konami, are now going multiplat.
There is nobody to blame but Sony and their business practices. There are no lazy devs, this isn't about MS buying everything (which is just par for the sony course). This is about Sony being an arrogant company, witholding money, refusing to 'buy exclusives', and putting faith in their business ties - which are apparently as thin as hair these days (see square, konami, koei, etc.).
3picuri3
I can agree with some of those things 3picuri3.
But yep what goes around comes around since you mentioned Eidos in your post TC.
Remember Tomb Raider II and the Sega Saturn? Yep sony bought it out so it could be on PS1 exclusively.
TC MS is not weak like Sega was then. Funny thing though that game was finished and ready to go.. they said they couldn't port it Saturn because of technical limitations. The first was released on the Saturn and 2 then used the same engine. So Eidos is staying true to form sorta.. why not complain about Devs like Eidos not bringing content to PS3. Sony has the money to do the same thing that MS is doing or maybe not.
Somewhere some former Saturn owners maybe getting a laugh out of this thread. :D
Â
Â
Sorry TC are you trying to imply that that is whats happening?
 Because i bet you probably posted the same thing in the PS3 forum
 the same info is there on the PS3 side of things. This site looking for more hits or something? :roll:Â
Â
You can play FFXI with a silver account. also
[QUOTE="mephisto_11"]blogsvetzenlether
Just because it's something you don't want to hear doesn't mean he should just blog it. As someone who hasn't yet decided which console (360 or PS3) to get, or even if it's worth it to get one in the first place, I'm glad people post stuff like this, otherwise I wouldn't know about it.
Well i hope one thing you take from this long winded post is not to buy off EBAY.
Other wise try doing research of each system outside of a forum like this.
If you find anything in this post remotely informative you've got a lot work cut out for you.
"Seriously buying a 360 of eBay is not worth the risk", should have been the title of this thread.
Somehow though the sincerity of the poster is at question since he's already
pulled from the deck the Failure rate card... the Shooters Only card ... and the buy a WII and PS3 because of the first 2 cards.:roll:
[QUOTE="AlphaGamer469"] No, you can use a FREE month XBL card and then download every game you want. Honostly if $50 is going to break your bank then why game to begin with?mstc_Q
It won't break my bank, but I can think of a lot of things I could spend that $50 on.
And you need XBL to play your games online...
Multiplayer games on-line that is ... be more complete to qualify that last line.
And the other things you could do with that $50 would be IMO very much similar to what you originally posted.
Not much unless you want to cite something you could do with the "one time" $50 that would last you a whole year.
Broken down its still little more than $4 a month.
$50 could very well be another game IF at the time my subscription were due at the time when i want the game but that short time is passed easily and i just get it after the subscription is paid.
Like someone else said in the thread PSN users use the FREE argument
and while that's always better than paying to play Multiplayer games, function-wise Live Silver still has more with what you get for free on PSN.
P.S A little something extra I been on Live since it launched (2002) Gold didn't exist at that time but its the same price as what you paid for the yearly subscription. At least one thing i can say the price of the games have gone up since but the yearly fee has been and for now always been 49.99 so for almost six years and 2 systems that is somewhat of a positive.
Next you see your in-laws try check out all the features if you can. Online multiplayer isn't the only thing that good about Xbox Live.
Check your profile settings at the dashboard that have to do with sharing content make sure they are set to 'Everyone'
The game has user created content 'like custom game maps and settings' as well as other content 'like viewing player game films' that Halo 3 checks for. Also downloaded content like the game maps. Give that a shot.
Hope i've helped.
You keep asking the questions of what has MS done on a business level?
The others answered that mostly.. but I'll add one that in my opinion you might not like.
/rant on
And that is "MS can survive".
They've kept a presence in the console scene that would have killed any small hardware manufacturer trying to jump in now. (Before you hit the reply button ... can you say Sega?)
If anything blame Sega for letting the "Devil thru the door" so to speak.
Technically the 360 is MS's third console.
But what!? You might be saying right now... yep Sega failed to survive in the console game with the Dream-cast and they had MS behind them then... how can that be?
Well they let MS put Windows-CE on it so Devs had a choice of Sega API or Windows-CE to develop from... so not surprising then that a lot of PC titles came to Dream-cast when they did.
The Dream-cast was a great console... (I owned one... loved it to death) but it couldn't survive because Sega was losing money on it and even with its success in Japan that couldn't save it.
Plus due to the hype machine that is Sony courting 3rd party developers over to PS2... and the PS2 sales numbers. And a certain loudmouth 3rd party Developer simply saying we have no interest in bringing games to the DC. (Trying to dictate the console winner that gen) Not to mention Sega's horrible marketing of the console in the U.S.
Western Devs eventually dropped support for the DC ... its U.S sales dieing left Sony with just Nintendo to compete against... Even when MS comes on to the scene with Xbox1 Sony PR felt it was no real competition.
So MS thinks they can get in... Why not? They already worked with a console and had one of their OS's on it. They bring on-line gaming to their platform too since Sega did that with DC... worked well for Sega ... but MS expanded it and improved on it.
Sony brings on-line gaming to the PS2 after Xbox had it.. but never does anything to make it their own.. sure they let the developers decide whether their games had it.. but things started to change in that area where you had EA who were doing PS2 on-line only... and wouldn't do XboxLive enable games started making them Live enabled.. (e.g Madden). Yep PS2 had On-line games... But Xbox had more of them whether they were Halo 2 or some other FPS , Racers etc.
So Xbox being easy to dev on then with a solid functional on-line framework in place... some ported PS2 titles with on-line started to look better on Xbox on-line.
And Live made it easy then as it does now find friends playing on-line.
With the PS2 on-line it was a crap-shoot ... depending mostly on if your friends were playing the same game at the time you were on.
(That's almost still like it is now on PSN but at least you can see what they are playing at XMB first before you get into your game but you still have to be playing the same game on-line to invite someone.)
PS on-line was free back then .. but still the pay Live service didn't bring MS down to cancel it or make it optional for the 360... its there on it now it only has 2 options Silver (free) and Gold (pay) despite PSN being free Xbox Live has not had to change much to affect MS in anyway... and people still get the gold service because they wanna play multiplayer on-line the rest of free services are an issue but not enough to stop people from getting it. (I been on it since the day it launched in 2002. been paying the 49.99 (now called gold) ever since and haven't regretted it but that's just my OP)
So now they jump in with the 360 first this current gen Nintendo didn't think that was a good idea but they are competitors.. then they have the RROD issue... freezing and what have you. They respond to those issues by either free repairs/replacements for RROD and extended warranties and reimbursement if you paid for RROD repair before their the new plan went into effect. Yet people still buy 360's. They still want brand respectability too along with your money.
All the while the Xbox1 flops in Japan but does decent in the west. The PS2 sold 5 times as many Xboxes overall But that didn't deter MS. They took the risk in Japan and stayed with it regardless. The 360 flops in Japan as well but they are still sticking with the support and sales there.
Now PS3 is flopping in Japan and pushing sales in other markets... (i.e the West)
Sounds like a certain console of days gone by only the other way around. :)
Seems to me you think MS has done nothing as if they have no "business" being in the console business.
They are still the newcomers this time around... and for Sony?? Is looking well... some things are starting to look Sega-ish. MS is no Sega... they are here to stay and there is nothing the other two can do to stop them... the only thing that can stop Microsoft is Microsoft. Eastern Devs are starting to take note they can't ignore MS forever or the west for that matter
So MS has innovated... and they have proved that an American console can compete in this business again.
/rant off
I own a 360 only but have played on my bro's PS3 and Wii.. there's room for 3 consoles in this race there are still 3 strong companies from last gen still here that can keep our hobby alive for the next 3 or 4 gens to follow this one.
Log in to comment