Microsoft or Sony bowing out of race?

[SuperShouden]

http://www.industrygamers.com/news/...out-of-next-gen-console-race-predicts-gaikai/

Yeah, so, gaikai, a cloud gaming service, is saying that someone will be announcing that either Sony or Microsoft will announced, at E3 that they're not going to be making a next-gen console.

A lot of people are speculating that it's Sony because they announced that they're not announcing PS4 at E3, they think that it's Sony. My theory, however, is Microsoft will be the ones to bow out. Why? The Xbox 360 was a hug financial failure and they will probably never make money off of it. It still has the highest failure rate of all the consoles, and it has had the highest secondary failure rate (that is, people who have had at least two consoles replaced due to hardware failure) of all the consoles. (their second failure rate is actually higher than their single failure rate, meaning, that most of their consoles failed twice). And, despite being ahead of Sony for a long time, Sony has closed that gap to only 3.2 million units.) We've also have only heard what...one rumor about the 720?

Sony keeps breaking records. They are the ONLY console maker to consistently sell 60 million units. They have actually sold more than 300 million units in total (closing in on 350million units). Sony is known for milking franchises for all their worth.



Although, I don't think this is true. I think, with a new Halo trilogy coming, Microsoft will want to make a new console. However, Halo 4 is a 360 game and it's coming in November...and the Wiii U (which no one cares about) is coming out at the end of the year, as well. And Sony has mentioned that they're not going to be the last one out of the gate, again. So, that implies that they're already making the PS4. The only people who haven't mentioned they're making a new console is Microsoft. And they've given several hints that they aren't making another one.

 

[McLaren]

1) What leads anyone to say it'll be these 2? Why not Nintendo?
2) Um, that's wrong. Nintendo has sold 60+ million units of the Wii & the NES. We can throw the portable handhelds in there as well, a piece.
3) Sony's PS3 has yet to break 60 million units. The Xbox 360 however, has touched 66 million.
4) Sony's consoles & handhelds together have brought in over 380 million.
5) Nintendo has surpassed that.
6) Microsoft has not lost money on the Xbox 360. They have seen profits & 2011 was a fantastic year for them.
http://www.gamezone.com/news/xbox-3...s-for-2011-becomes-top-selling-console-in-u-s

 

[Luminis]

http://www.industrygamers.com/news/...out-of-next-gen-console-race-predicts-gaikai/The Xbox 360 was a hug financial failure and they will probably never make money off of it.

Microsoft's Entertainment and Devices devision has been making profits in 2008 and the subsequent years (didn't bother checking any further, really), despite revenue based on Zunes and PCs declining, with most of the revenue created by said devision being down to the Xbox.

I guess I don't have to bother with the rest of your post as it's based on an entirely wrong premise.

Also, skipping the next generation of consoles doesn't equal going out of the console market entirely, I'd assume. With the financial losses Sony announced throughout 2011, it might make sense to just skip this generation.

 

[Blaze_409]

Sony did say the PS3 would be put to work for 10 good years..So mayber theyre not making one for next year but instead for 2016

 

[Lizard]

Considering that the wii sold on a gimmik that everyone was hooked on then why should sony bow out? If sony get a better product out it will make money or have good ideas. (I hate the wii with a vengence)

 

[killer tiller]

Considering that the wii sold on a gimmik that everyone was hooked on then why should they bow out? If they get a better product out it will make money or have good ideas. (I hate the wii with a vengence)

The wii is crap, if I wanted to play games where I actually have to exercise, then I'll go out and exercise lol.

 

[SuperShouden]

Sony did say the PS3 would be put to work for 10 good years..So mayber theyre not making one for next year but instead for 2016

Yeah, but they said that about the PS1 and PS2. And the PS2 was released 6 years into the cycle of the PS1 and PS3 6 years into the cycle of the PS2. It's 2012, six years into the cycle of PS3 AND they out right said that they weren't going to be the last one's to release the console ever again...in fact, they were eager to be the first ones out....Now, we know that the Wii U is coming out this year, so saying "We're not coming out last," is actually saying, "Yes, the PS4 is coming out in 2012 sometime before the Wii U comes out..."

Now, actually, Wii U probably isn't going to do well, and I wouldn't be surprised if Sony didn't even care about the Wii U. Now, if they're not caring about the Wii U and Microsoft is stepping down, the "we're not dropping our next console last, again," could have hinted at that. It could also hint that they're stepping down....However, as I've said, they're the best selling console maker of all time. Heck, whenever the PS3 sells another 10 million units, it breaks another record.

But, there is a problem...if MS or Sony bows out (also, Sony just released the VITA. Why would they quit the race right after their second handheld is released?), then I see Sony, by then end of 2012/2013 having the monopoly on the non-handheld market. Because...let's face it...Nintendo announced the Wii U at E3 and I literally haven't heard a THING about it since then and I just got the unanimous sense that no one actually cares. The Wii was a great idea, but selling a new console to non-gamers in this economy, isn't something you can repeat, very well. And the Wii U, is a "hardcore gamer" console with the non-gamer console's name attached to it. Hey, Nintendo, if you didn't notice, not a lot of hardcore gamers bought the Wii, so making a "hardcore" version of the Wii probably isn't the best idea.

And...you can't really make a new console when you're still paying for the previous one. I mean, you good, if you wanted to make the gaping hole in your budget bigger...Yeah...Unfortunately, The 360, while it was MS's best console and gave everyone hope for MS's future in gaming, it was also a huge failure. Probably the largest financial failure, and because of that, MS might be done. At least for a while. I think the best idea for them is to start pumping out some awesome games and stick with well known best selling franchises and try your best to make up as much money as they can from the 360. I don't think they'll be able to ever break into the black with it, but, they can, at least make the hole smaller. I think not messing with a next gen console at the moment is a good idea.

Microsoft's Entertainment and Devices devision has been making profits in 2008 and the subsequent years (didn't bother checking any further, really), despite revenue based on Zunes and PCs declining, with most of the revenue created by said devision being down to the Xbox.

I guess I don't have to bother with the rest of your post as it's based on an entirely wrong premise.

Also, skipping the next generation of consoles doesn't equal going out of the console market entirely, I'd assume. With the financial losses Sony announced throughout 2011, it might make sense to just skip this generation.

Even if they're currently making money off the system...The consoles were "negligently designed" according to a lawsuit they lost. I don't mean that the 360 isn't making money, I mean that Microsoft has had to sink millions and millions of dollars into the console just to get it down to an 18% failure rate...which is still the highest of the three consoles. And the current 360, isn't even built my Microsoft. The original system was so bad, they went to hardware company and had them build a "slim" Xbox 360.

They had to spend money to extend warranties, they had to pay for countless lawsuits, and repairs. The machine was so bad, that before the system was even released, MS had a "Disc Replacement Program." that charged $20 to replace select discs that their console destroyed. (BTW, MS got sued for that and now, they have to replace the discs for free.)

I think if Microsoft is involved with a Console it'll be more like "This console...powered by Microsoft" Like the Sync system.

 

[bevo]

As much as I hate to say it, I hope it's sony. The PSN just sickens me. I don't think they deserve to make another console after how bad PSN turned out to be compared to xbox live. I actually like the PS3 better as a console, but the PSN is just awful, and if I were sony I would be really embarrassed about how it stacks up against xbox live. I don't care if it's free or not, it's garbage. I would much rather pay for quality, then get what sony has offered this time.

 

[mika haka]

Can't see either leaving the console race too be honest. Microsoft renewed their exclusive deal for COD so they look like they are staying in the race. Sony have dropped hints that GT6 will be on the ps4, so they also look like staying in the race. Would be good though to only have one console as then developers would get the best out the console and we wouldn't end up with all these bad ports.

 

[Parker]

As much as I hate to say it, I hope it's sony. The PSN just sickens me. I don't think they deserve to make another console after how bad PSN turned out to be compared to xbox live. I actually like the PS3 better as a console, but the PSN is just awful, and if I were sony I would be really embarrassed about how it stacks up against xbox live. I don't care if it's free or not, it's garbage. I would much rather pay for quality, then get what sony has offered this time.

Out of curiosity, how is the PSN garbage? I have owned both consoles for quite a while now (PS3 since release) and I fail to see how Live! is better in any way, shape or form. The dashboard is a mess, making it annoyingly time consuming to get to dlc or other things I'm interested in (in my opinion of course) and there is absolutely no difference in speed between downloading a PS3 or 360 demo or dlc, which is strange because I've heard countless claims that Live! is the faster service but it has never been the case for me. PSN is a fantastic service (especially considering it's free) and in my opinion is every bit as good as Live!. I don't ever use cross game chat on my 360 so I'm not one of the ones that complain about not having it on PS3.

If you're referring to the PSN going down because of the hack as to why you think it's garbage, I think that's pretty silly. No company will ever have security that can't be hacked and since there were enough Anonymous members pissed off at Sony, they took down the network. I can remember hearing claims that credit card information was stolen, but I know that the information was encrypted (as proven by a member on another site I'm on who is much more intelligent that I when it comes to technology) and I can't recall anyone actually proving there information was stolen. Steam, Xbox, Capcom and many, many other companies were all hacked as well (although, not to the extent of the PSN) so to use it as a reason for the PSN being "garbage" is goofy. Again, I'm not claiming the hack is one of your reasons, but it's been my experience that a lot of people read threads on the internet about the PSN hack where people claim all sorts of goofy things, and then believe them and start to repeat it to others.

Oh, and to all those who are "afraid" to put your credit card details on PSN, don't put them on the internet at all. ANY website can get hacked (I believe Amazon has in the past) so the only way to endure your details not getting out, is by not having them out there in the first place.

Parker

 

[Crispy]

I highly doubt either will lack a next generation console. They both sell profits massively. I have more of a feeling that it's Nintendo that will drop out. They were, as said above, based on a gimmick, and thus didn't sell well after their initial release.

 

[SuperShouden]

As I said, I seriously doubt this is real, too. I mean...when I saw it was from a random cloud gaming service, I instantly doubted the credibility of it. But, I'm just saying, if one were to step down, I figured it would be Microsoft simply because the 360 had a LOT of issues. However, they did hire company to redesign the Xbox to make it work correctly. On the other hand, Halo 4 is coming out on the 360 and if Sony's releasing their new console before Nintendo, that means they will, once again, be the last one's out of the gate. 'Cause if Halo 4 is coming out late 2012, then I expect the 720 to come out in 2013 at the earliest.

 

[Ibonibo]

Online streaming service (which is still not working and probably will be crushed by onlive) talking Bs about first party entertainement manufactures.
Wow that must be true than.
Well, at least they got some publicity now
/sarcasm.

No way!

MS has gained a lot of territory with the 360. Those would be lost, as would be the millions of investement that they made.

Sony neither.
it simply does not make sense what she's talking about.

Now read between the lines:
1.
It could mean that one of the big players (that would be MS) will concentrate more in selling a global entertainement console as opposed to a pure dedicated gaming station (as seen in the recent months with the dashboard update). Now that would sound more plausible. Doesn't it.

2. as she is talking about next gen, it all plays on the words. Wii U will be current gen opposed to the next gen consoles that will come out in 2-3 years. So yeah, Nintendo will not join the next gen. As it already did with the Wii.


Now. Where can I get one of those high paied job for throwing out prophesis like that?

 

[Luminis]

The wii is crap, if I wanted to play games where I actually have to exercise, then I'll go out and exercise lol.

"I dislike X, therefore X is crap" is exactly the kind of mindset that kills these discussions, in my opinion.

"Yes, the PS4 is coming out in 2012 sometime before the Wii U comes out..."

Which would go against Sony's own press release. You could also take that statement to mean that, if they can't offer a working PS4 by the time Ms and Nintendo are on the market already, they're just going to sit this one out, by the way.

Now, actually, Wii U probably isn't going to do well, and I wouldn't be surprised if Sony didn't even care about the Wii U.

That's what people said about the original Wii, as well. Just because you or most other hardcore gamers don't like, doesn't mean that it isn't going to sell well.

Now, if they're not caring about the Wii U and Microsoft is stepping down, the "we're not dropping our next console last, again," could have hinted at that. It could also hint that they're stepping down....However, as I've said, they're the best selling console maker of all time. Heck, whenever the PS3 sells another 10 million units, it breaks another record.

Lots of ifs, no?

(also, Sony just released the VITA. Why would they quit the race right after their second handheld is released?)

Because the handheld/mobile devices market isn't the same as the home console market?

But, there is a problem...if MS or Sony bows out, then I see Sony, by then end of 2012/2013 having the monopoly on the non-handheld market.

Do you honestly think that Sony is going to launch the console without even announcing at E³? Really?

Because...let's face it...Nintendo announced the Wii U at E3 and I literally haven't heard a THING about it since then and I just got the unanimous sense that no one actually cares.

I guess that "unanimous sense" would be more down to your bias against Nintendo, really. We've heard far more about the Wii U than the PS4, which is even demented by Sony, and you're saying that it somehow would have more momentum than the Wii U? What kind of logic is that?

The Wii was a great idea, but selling a new console to non-gamers in this economy, isn't something you can repeat, very well. And the Wii U, is a "hardcore gamer" console with the non-gamer console's name attached to it.

Hey, Nintendo, if you didn't notice, not a lot of hardcore gamers bought the Wii, so making a "hardcore" version of the Wii probably isn't the best idea.

What's "hardcore gamer" about the Wii U, again? The biggest thing that made the Wii so casual friendly was its game library, and there's literally nothing that would stop developers from using the Wii U's gimmicks to create a load of casual games, yet again.

Also, selling an upgraded product to the same audience is what console manufacturers have been doing for decades now, I fail to see the problem with that.

And...you can't really make a new console when you're still paying for the previous one. I mean, you good, if you wanted to make the gaping hole in your budget bigger...Yeah...Unfortunately, The 360, while it was MS's best console and gave everyone hope for MS's future in gaming, it was also a huge failure. Probably the largest financial failure, and because of that, MS might be done.

Okay, they've been making loads of money off of the Xbox360. It's what made MS EDD as profitable as it has been over the last four or maybe five years. So, if you insist on the Xbox being a financial failure, I'd ask you to provide some sort of source for that instead of just stating your opinion as fact.

At least for a while. I think the best idea for them is to start pumping out some awesome games and stick with well known best selling franchises and try your best to make up as much money as they can from the 360. I don't think they'll be able to ever break into the black with it, but, they can, at least make the hole smaller. I think not messing with a next gen console at the moment is a good idea.

As I said already, MS EDD have been profitable for quite a while. The devision posted a 8.9 billion $ revenue in 2011, a record driven by the Xbox franchise, according to MS's quarterly segment reports.

So, really, provide some sources on why you think they can never break into the black with it, while Sony have been announcing losses throughout 2011. Here's a quote from the Guardian:

Sony's consumer products and services division, which includes its PC, TV and PlayStation businesses, experienced another tough quarter, plunging to an operating loss of ¥34.6bn.

Just for comparisons sake, MS's segment report for EDD for Q4, FY2011:

• Xbox franchise drives record year
• Revenue up 45% to $8.9 billion
• Xbox #1 console share in the U.S.
• 55 million Xbox 360 consoles installed WW
• Approx. 35 million Xbox Live members
• Introduced Kinect
• Windows Phone launched worldwide
• Signed alliance with Nokia

Now, compare those figures, keep in mind that Sony, as a whole, lost even more money throughout 2011 (and has been losing money for, what, three or four years in a row?), and tell me that it is MS that is in a questionable position to release a neew console.

Even if they're currently making money off the system...The consoles were "negligently designed" according to a lawsuit they lost. I don't mean that the 360 isn't making money, I mean that Microsoft has had to sink millions and millions of dollars into the console just to get it down to an 18% failure rate...which is still the highest of the three consoles. And the current 360, isn't even built my Microsoft. The original system was so bad, they went to hardware company and had them build a "slim" Xbox 360.

For the love of god, stop making assumptions and go by the facts, for once

They had to spend money to extend warranties, they had to pay for countless lawsuits, and repairs. The machine was so bad, that before the system was even released, MS had a "Disc Replacement Program." that charged $20 to replace select discs that their console destroyed. (BTW, MS got sued for that and now, they have to replace the discs for free.)

I think if Microsoft is involved with a Console it'll be more like "This console...powered by Microsoft" Like the Sync system.

If what you're saying was remotely true, we'd see MS EDD losing money. We wouldn't see the Xbox 360 being the driving force behind record breaking income for that devision. Which you conveniently seem to be ignoring. If you want to look at a company that is in that situation, look at Sony. A lot of what you've been saying, albeit for different reasons, would be more suitable if said about Sony than about MS, because the fact is that MS has been making quite a large sum of money off of their Entertainment and Devices Devision, while Sony has been losing money with their corresponding devision.

So, please, get over your bias, look at the facts which are readily available for anyone who's willing to spend five minutes on research and stop basing your entire argument on what you think might be happening, especially if it goes against all factual information that can be found.

I understand you don't want Sony to skip this console generation, I understand you want MS to be the one to skip it or bow out completely because you dislike them and/or their console, but still, I'd say that there is very, very little that supports your argument and quite a lot that leads me to assume that it is indeed the other way around.

 

[SuperShouden]

Luminis, I love how you quoted all of that...(which I'm not reading all of especially at 6:40am), and completely ignored my, "Yeah, I figured this whole thing was BS, too, but, I figure, if one company is stepping down, it's MS)

I never said "I want MS to skip a generation." I said, "If anyone were to step down, I THINK it would be MS."

What is...You know, there are things far more important in the world than worrying about which console maker is stepping down.

I'm sorry if I posted inaccurate statements. I'm an idiot, but you know what, it's my opinion, but, ripping into me like this whole "someone's stepping down" is my whole idea. I even said, last paragraph:

Although, I don't think this is true.

I love it when people whine about someone not reading and not doing research and they fail to even read the entire post. Yeah. Okay, I'm sorry if you like the Xbox over the PS3, or visa versa. I really don't care who leaves and who stays 'cause you know what? 'Cause there are people who are dying of thirst somewhere. Yeah, there's just far more important things in my life than game consoles. I thought it was an interesting, mildly important news story, and so I posted and gave my opinion. Crying over that...man...you must hate reading the newspaper or watching the news.

 

[mekonrider]

Wow. Some heavy conjecture here from a Sony fanboy.

 

[Tornado]

Neither Microsoft nor Sony are going anywhere. An article by a nobody from a company noone has ever heard of in a niche of the industry that was DoA doesn't change that.

 

[bevo]

Out of curiosity, how is the PSN garbage?

Here is what kills me about the PSN
Download times seem to not work well with certain ISP subscriptions. In my area, people who have normal roadrunner have horrible PS3 download times. I switched to turbo and it fixed my problems, but it costs me 10$ a month more just to get the PSN to work properly. Everyone else in my area who kept their normal internet has a big difference between the 360 and PSN on download times. Several time I started downloading the same demo on both consoles and the 360. the 360 would do one in around 15-20 minutes, the PS3 would literally take hours to do the same thing. One comparison the 360 took somewhere like 20 minutes and the PS3 was over 6 hours doing the same download. When socom 4 came out it took over 4 hours to even be able to get the game ready to play with all of the downloads and mandatory install, then when that was done the PSN was down until the next day.


The updates to the PSN and install times take forever compared to the 360. First you have to download the Demo, PSN update or whatever then you have to install the content, which some times takes 30 minutes or longer just to get the install let alone the download.

HOME is the biggest waste of time i have ever seen.

They need to either charge a fee for the PSN or make it free. I want party chat all the time for everyone. It's hard to get people to pay 60$ for cross game party chat(at least I think it has party chat) and party chat alone. How can I get people to play PS3 games, if I have to explain to them the different levels of pay to play on the PSN and what each tier offers. It makes playing games on a console too complicated.

The network is down alot more then the 360. I remember when the 360 went down for a couple weeks too over christmas a few years ago, so the PSN security thing wasn't that big of a deal to me. What kills me are all the little downs they have. I bet that 10% of the time I go to log in on the PSN it doesn't connect and I have to go back an manually log in. That very, very rarely happens in xbox live

I liked how simple the PSN was at first, but after getting use to the new 360 interface, it's way ahead of PSN. You can watch TV, sports, movies etc. and it's right there in front of you telling you that. With PSN you have to go hunting in menus to find what your looking for and miss out on a bunch of features that the PSN offers.

It's just boring. I like how the 360 has made xbox live seem like you have many options other then just playing games. You can easily watch all kinds of gamer videos in seconds. For the PSN you have to hunt down new videos or trailers for games, it's just clunky and not user friendly at all. It seems like you are on an old 386 computer compared to something running the lastest version of windows. I've tried to take up for the PSN in the past, but after dealing with friends who have played games since the commodore 64, and them not being able to easily find what they are looking for on the PSN I have gave up.

I could keep going and going about problems with the PSN. These are just off of the top of my head. I would love to sit down and have someone have my wife or anyone who is not familiar with either the PSN or xbox live, try to find a certain item in the PSN store and see how long that takes, and then do the same thing with the 360. It would never be found on the PS3 and within a minute or so I bet they would be watching it on the 360. Maybe that's an experiment I will do tonight. Her cousin is at the house to and I'll time both of them and see which items are found faster.

Why don't you give me list of 3 things that I should have them try and access on both consoles? It will probbaly be really late before we get done though because I have a PSN update to do.

I did my ps3 update at lunch. It took 8 minuteds to download the update, and it took 7 minutes to install it. I checked my connection speed before I started and my computer was getting 26mb using wifi. There's no reason it should take that long to do an update

 

[ussr]

Wow. Some heavy conjecture here from a Sony fanboy.

Fanboy or not it's not the right time to speak about new game machines. CES was ended and people were shocked than neither microstoft and sony announced their new console. LOL Why they should? Why?

 

[Luminis]

Luminis, I love how you quoted all of that...(which I'm not reading all of especially at 6:40am), and completely ignored my, "Yeah, I figured this whole thing was BS, too, but, I figure, if one company is stepping down, it's MS)

I never said "I want MS to skip a generation." I said, "If anyone were to step down, I THINK it would be MS."

What is...You know, there are things far more important in the world than worrying about which console maker is stepping down.

I'm sorry if I posted inaccurate statements. I'm an idiot, but you know what, it's my opinion, but, ripping into me like this whole "someone's stepping down" is my whole idea. I even said, last paragraph:



I love it when people whine about someone not reading and not doing research and they fail to even read the entire post. Yeah. Okay, I'm sorry if you like the Xbox over the PS3, or visa versa. I really don't care who leaves and who stays 'cause you know what? 'Cause there are people who are dying of thirst somewhere. Yeah, there's just far more important things in my life than game consoles. I thought it was an interesting, mildly important news story, and so I posted and gave my opinion. Crying over that...man...you must hate reading the newspaper or watching the news.

Moral high ground, eh? Sorry, but I so am not going to go there. Not on a website that's about videogames, in a thread that is specifically about debating an unimportant "first world problem".

Neither Microsoft nor Sony are going anywhere. An article by a nobody from a company noone has ever heard of in a niche of the industry that was DoA doesn't change that.

I think you're right. At best, we'll see one of the companies skipping a console generation or maybe releasing their console in the middle of a generation, because they might make more money off of that strategy.

Fanboy or not it's not the right time to speak about new game machines.

I'm not too sure about that... We've seen new generations of consoles being introduced approximately six yers into the life cicles of their predecessors, and that would pretty much be, well, now. The Wii U would fit that time frame, too.

 

[CMvan46]

Bevo I completely disagree with pretty much all your PSN complaints. The layout isn't the best but when it's free that's absolutely fine by me.

I have owned both consoles and there is no way download times are any different for me. If any the ps3 may actually be faster for me.

Home is free and guess what... You don't have to use it! Why complain about a free thing you don't have to use?

PSN down all the time? You must have some issues with your ps3 or something. I play my ps3 daily and not once since the security breach have I not been logged in automatically or logged out of psn while using it. Unless there is maintenance but that's fine by me as it's once every long while.

 

[bevo]

Bevo I completely disagree with pretty much all your PSN complaints. The layout isn't the best but when it's free that's absolutely fine by me.

I have owned both consoles and there is no way download times are any different for me. If any the ps3 may actually be faster for me.

Home is free and guess what... You don't have to use it! Why complain about a free thing you don't have to use?

PSN down all the time? You must have some issues with your ps3 or something. I play my ps3 daily and not once since the security breach have I not been logged in automatically or logged out of psn while using it. Unless there is maintenance but that's fine by me as it's once every long while.

Just because something is free doesn't make it better to me. If I just went around and asked for free handouts I think everything I have would be pretty much junk. I would much rather pay for something nice then be given something free. Paying for the PSN isn't going to make it better then xbox live. Like you said the layout isn't the best. I want the best and xbox live is the best for the consoles. If someone came and gave you a sega saturn are you going to say it's better then your 360 because it was free. Sony said the PSN was going to be free, they didn't mention it being inferior. The only people I have ever ran into that defend the PSN are people online. No one I know in the real world says that, unless they were just in the mood to argue, and we have all had both consoles since pretty much launch.

Like I said before, the download times seem dependent on your ISP. Now that I have roadrunner turbo they are about equal. That doesn't seem to be the case though with the 360s in my area. Everyones 360s update and download pretty fast.

Maybe the reason I like xbox live so much better is because I play with so many real life friends. At any given night there could be 15 of us on and xbox live makes it super easy to get together and play. We tried to get into socom 4 together and not once did we all get into a game together. We were trying to use the playstation text chat feature to get together and that did not work. It was just so stupid after getting use to xbox lives voice chat. I suppose if you are not into playing online with lots of friends, and your ISP works well with the PSN then maybe it's fine. For me though all I do is play online with friends and the PSN makes that a challenge. We all tried to play NCAA 10 together in an online dynasty on PSN and that worked out horribly. No party chat, so that sucked, and then we were constantly losing the in game chat during the offseasons. We would have to constantly call each other to figure out if this guy was done and we could advance.

Can you honestly tell me that you think that PSN is better then Xbox live, without saying I don't want to have to pay a whole 60$ a year for xbox live? If you do think it's better, list me a few features that you like better on the PSN then xbox live. I honestly can't think of one. I want to like the PS3 and defended it to no end the first few years, but I can't anymore. It just seems old and outdated.

As for HOME, I know it's free and I don't have to use it, and believe me I don't, but why did they put all the time and effort into it when they could have made the entire online service better? How often do you go into HOME, and what do you do when your in it? It seems completely pointless to me.

 

[Saidur_Ali]

I thought I'd add PSN is actually very good. The problem is with the PS3. Lack of ram and the way networks work on it causes the problems when comparing it against Xbox 360. PS Vita should be better in that regard while using the same network .

I personally think Xbox Live Gold is a big rip off if you are only interested in playing games online. You are more or less paying to be able to use your internet connection on your 360 in games. I guess that really helps Microsoft's profits, it will be interesting to see if they can get away with it next-generation when Sony will be able to offer similar features and service for free (If they keep it free that is), that is if they do make a new console of course which I think is likely. Hopefully they learn from ther big mistakes regarding the PS3.

 

[SuperShouden]

I'm not a really a Sony fanboy. Right now, if I were given a choice between the two, I'd actually probably choose the 360.

I do like the "he's a fanboy" when I simply said, "Well, Xbox 360 has the most issues, so they'd be the most logical one to step down," though. 👍

BTW, People keep bringing up the "We're not going to announce PS4 in 2012" comment from Sony. But, you have to remember that they then later mentioned they were going to be the last one out. Sony said they weren't going to ANNOUNCE anything at E3. That doesn't mean they're not going to release anything in 2012. And it just referred to E3, that means they could announce the PS3 at TGS or something.

Anyways, I also believe that Xbox's next system would be their best system and there battle between Sony and MS would be much much stronger. I think that they'll take the lessons learned from the 360 and the next system (probably not actually built by Intel or Microsoft), and create a working, well made product.

 

[II-zOoLoGy-II]

I'm not a really a Sony fanboy. Right now, if I were given a choice between the two, I'd actually probably choose the 360.

I do like the "he's a fanboy" when I simply said, "Well, Xbox 360 has the most issues, so they'd be the most logical one to step down," though. 👍

BTW, People keep bringing up the "We're not going to announce PS4 in 2012" comment from Sony. But, you have to remember that they then later mentioned they were going to be the last one out. Sony said they weren't going to ANNOUNCE anything at E3. That doesn't mean they're not going to release anything in 2012. And it just referred to E3, that means they could announce the PS3 at TGS or something.

Anyways, I also believe that Xbox's next system would be their best system and there battle between Sony and MS would be much much stronger. I think that they'll take the lessons learned from the 360 and the next system (probably not actually built by Intel or Microsoft), and create a working, well made product.

I wish I could remember the face palm emoticon.

Online streaming service (which is still not working and probably will be crushed by onlive) talking Bs about first party entertainement manufactures.
Wow that must be true than.
Well, at least they got some publicity now
/sarcasm.

No way!

MS has gained a lot of territory with the 360. Those would be lost, as would be the millions of investement that they made.

Sony neither.
it simply does not make sense what she's talking about.

Now read between the lines:
1.
It could mean that one of the big players (that would be MS) will concentrate more in selling a global entertainement console as opposed to a pure dedicated gaming station (as seen in the recent months with the dashboard update). Now that would sound more plausible. Doesn't it.

2. as she is talking about next gen, it all plays on the words. Wii U will be current gen opposed to the next gen consoles that will come out in 2-3 years. So yeah, Nintendo will not join the next gen. As it already did with the Wii.

Now. Where can I get one of those high paied job for throwing out prophesis like that?

This^

MS is pushing for general entertainment. Those of you who own a 360 should notice things like.... Oh, I don't know ESPN3, tv streaming, UFC PPV.... I also believe that there are patents out on a DVR for the next MS console...

Now sir... Can you guess my weight?

 

[II-zOoLoGy-II]

Double post sorry.

 

[LaBounti]

As much as I hate to say it, I hope it's sony. The PSN just sickens me. I don't think they deserve to make another console after how bad PSN turned out to be compared to xbox live. I actually like the PS3 better as a console, but the PSN is just awful, and if I were sony I would be really embarrassed about how it stacks up against xbox live. I don't care if it's free or not, it's garbage. I would much rather pay for quality, then get what sony has offered this time.

Sooo... you rather it not exist at all rather than just not use it?

With that said I have both systems and PSN is just fine for my usage.

 

[MHPALA]

Remember seeing a article about job listing at Microsoft for a new console. As long as it has the power to play DX11 to DX12 api, its fine with me. Ps3 and 360 are the same with hardware faults imo. I do hope the new xbox uses a 20 nm AMD architecture this time. I like the 360 better imo, and live gives a better experience than PSN to me. I just hope Microsoft learns from mistakes and and make the 720 better.

 

[bevo]

Sooo... you rather it not exist at all rather than just not use it?

With that said I have both systems and PSN is just fine for my usage.

I honestly would at this point. It would be great if everyone I knew only had one system. It sucks to try and get everyone in one dynasty for NCAA, or to be able to play a shooter with all of the people I know who games, instead of having to just play with the 360 guys, or the PS3 guys.

I know that competition makes for better products, but it would be nice to see just one for a 5 year stretch. Let PD and turn 10 battle it out on the same console and not let just console fanboys decide on which game is better. I'm just using them for an example. I know this is stupid, but it's what I would like to see for a small stretch, and then someone else step in with a fresh idea after that console starts to get dated.

 

[Coxis]

I don't mean to offend you, but that OP stinks of SONY fanboy.

This coming from a SONY supporter, the amount of bias and fact twisting in that OP is just ridiculous.