The Rant: Microsoft [Episode 1]

Sovereign Alan wrote:

TRF wrote:

Sovereign Alan wrote:

@Ihsahn

They've had a decent line-up pretty much every year until this one. Hell even 2009 wasn't that bad.

@DukemNukem

I wouldn't say NO quality games. Just not enough.

2009 wasn't that bad? It was horrible! The were only two exclusives I can think of: ODST and Forza 3. Of those two, one of them was a piece of trash. Then we've got other "classics" like Section 8 (which is now multiplat) and Darkest of Days.

ODST, Forza Motorsport 3, Halo Wars, L4D2, and there is another one that slipped my mind..

I never said 2009 was the year of the 360. I just said it was relatively decent compared to the current line-up the 360 has this year. 2009 was the worst year for 360, but that may be topped by 2011 if Gears 3 and Forza 4 are the only exclusives set to release this year.

The NeoGeo's launch line-up was better than the current 2011 360 Line-Up....

Sovereign Alan wrote:

TRF wrote:

Sovereign Alan wrote:

@Ihsahn

They've had a decent line-up pretty much every year until this one. Hell even 2009 wasn't that bad.

@DukemNukem

I wouldn't say NO quality games. Just not enough.

2009 wasn't that bad? It was horrible! The were only two exclusives I can think of: ODST and Forza 3. Of those two, one of them was a piece of trash. Then we've got other "classics" like Section 8 (which is now multiplat) and Darkest of Days.

ODST, Forza Motorsport 3, Halo Wars, and there is another one that slipped my mind..

I never said 2009 was the year of the 360. I just said it was relatively decent compared to the current line-up the 360 has this year. 2009 was the worst year for 360, but that may be topped by 2011 if Gears 3 and Forza 4 are the only exclusives set to release this year.

Fixed!

chobo500 wrote:

Sovereign Alan wrote:

TRF wrote:

Sovereign Alan wrote:

@Ihsahn

They've had a decent line-up pretty much every year until this one. Hell even 2009 wasn't that bad.

@DukemNukem

I wouldn't say NO quality games. Just not enough.

2009 wasn't that bad? It was horrible! The were only two exclusives I can think of: ODST and Forza 3. Of those two, one of them was a piece of trash. Then we've got other "classics" like Section 8 (which is now multiplat) and Darkest of Days.

ODST, Forza Motorsport 3, Halo Wars, and there is another one that slipped my mind..

I never said 2009 was the year of the 360. I just said it was relatively decent compared to the current line-up the 360 has this year. 2009 was the worst year for 360, but that may be topped by 2011 if Gears 3 and Forza 4 are the only exclusives set to release this year.

Fixed!

L4D2 is a console exclusive. Sort of like how the MLB series releases on PS3 and PSP and we consider it in the same sense as a PS3 exclusive.

I've discussed technicality over and over. A console game that is only on one console but may be on a PC and or handheld has the same value as a game that is exclusive to one console platform.

Kind of a random thought, but I find it funny how people say "360 lost Mass Effect" when they would argue in the past that it wasn't exclusive. lol...

Sovereign Alan wrote:

chobo500 wrote:

Sovereign Alan wrote:

TRF wrote:

Sovereign Alan wrote:

@Ihsahn

They've had a decent line-up pretty much every year until this one. Hell even 2009 wasn't that bad.

@DukemNukem

I wouldn't say NO quality games. Just not enough.

2009 wasn't that bad? It was horrible! The were only two exclusives I can think of: ODST and Forza 3. Of those two, one of them was a piece of trash. Then we've got other "classics" like Section 8 (which is now multiplat) and Darkest of Days.

ODST, Forza Motorsport 3, Halo Wars, and there is another one that slipped my mind..

I never said 2009 was the year of the 360. I just said it was relatively decent compared to the current line-up the 360 has this year. 2009 was the worst year for 360, but that may be topped by 2011 if Gears 3 and Forza 4 are the only exclusives set to release this year.

Fixed!

L4D2 is a console exclusive. Sort of like how the MLB series releases on PS3 and PSP and we consider it in the same sense as a PS3 exclusive.

I've discussed technicality over and over. A console game that is only on one console but may be on a PC and or handheld has the same value as a game that is exclusive to one console platform.

Kind of a random thought, but I find it funny how people say "360 lost Mass Effect" when they would argue in the past that it wasn't exclusive. lol...

though console games shared with a handheld are very different games, So i'll go with you on that. 360/PC games are the Exact same game. and if it is on the PC, the 360 is not needed to play that game. and don't gave me any of that "Microsoft exclusive" Bullshit. MS get's no money from any game I purchase on the PC(unless it's from games for windows live).

I got proof of gaming developers and gaming sites using this term or implying the same meaning.

Some people don't like the term because it makes the PC sound insignificant, but it doesn't change the fact that it is a real term and that developers do intentionally release them as (XXX/PC only) console exclusives.

If I said "X360 exclusives and or X360/PC games" you wouldn't have replied. I understand the game is technically multiplat and I have nothing to hide, but simply saying "console exclusive" is just an easier way to say it for me.

EDIT:

The PSP/PS2 versions of MLB the show aren't drastically different from the PS3 version. And technically you don't need an Xbox 360 to play any 360 game since there are a bunch of decent emulators to run them on PC. 360/PC only games are aimed at the console audience to get a 360. It serves the same purpose as an exclusive.

Sovereign Alan wrote:

I got proof of gaming developers and gaming sites using this term or implying the same meaning.

Some people don't like the term because it makes the PC sound insignificant, but it doesn't change the fact that it is a real term and that developers do intentionally release them as (XXX/PC only) console exclusives.

If I said "X360 exclusives and or X360/PC games" you wouldn't have replied. I understand the game is technically multiplat and I have nothing to hide, but simply saying "console exclusive" is just an easier way to say it for me.

EDIT:

The PSP/PS2 versions of MLB the show aren't drastically different from the PS3 version. And technically you don't need an Xbox 360 to play any 360 game since there are a bunch of decent emulators to run them on PC. 360/PC only games are aimed at the console audience to get a 360. It serves the same purpose as an exclusive.

the PS2 version isn't drastically different, but the PSP version is, due to the fact that MLB 11 uses Dual analog controls.

I've never heard of a 360 emulator on the PC, but i'll look into it.

But here is my argument to your last statement. if a game is 360/PC only and the PS3 is my prefered platform next to the PC, whty would I buy a game like L4D2 on the 360 when I can get it on the PC with Better frame rate, graphics, community, Mods, free DLC, dedicated servers, ect.? this is just L4D im talking. other 360/PC games are about equal with the PC maybe running the game a little better.

That's not really the audience that console exclusives are aimed at. The point is that not every PS3 owner has a gaming PC rig. And to categorize 360/PC games in the same way as 360/PC/PS3/Wii games just isn't generally fair. The arguement is similar to the whole "I have an Itouch and a phone, why would I need an Iphone?" Well, ignoring the fact that the Iphone can do certain things the Itouch and a regular phone can't, it's an all in one device. It can do everything that the Itouch can and serves as a phone. My 360 can play multiplat games shared with a PC and multiplat games shared with the PS3. You cannot play L4D on your PS3 and to simply say "oh it doesn't matter since I have a PC" is kind of ignoring the point. Platform Exclusives do more damage in the sense that the other platforms cannot play those certain games. This is mainly why I consider 360/PC only games or PS3/PC and or PS3/PSP games the same value as a platform exclusive. I definitely agree, however, that the non-Microsoft published 360/PC games are not very iconic games for the 360 since they usually have more features on the PC. Still, an inferior version is better than no version.

BTW 360 version has dedicated servers, and all of the L4D DLC had been free on it until recently (Just when you think I've covered everything in the rant LOL, I might have to make a part 2...titled "fuck off Microsoft").

Sovereign Alan wrote:

That's not really the audience that console exclusives are aimed at. The point is that not every PS3 owner has a gaming PC rig. And to categorize 360/PC games in the same way as 360/PC/PS3/Wii games just isn't generally fair. The arguement is similar to the whole "I have an Itouch and a phone, why would I need an Iphone?" Well, ignoring the fact that the Iphone can do certain things the Itouch and a regular phone can't, it's an all in one device. It can do everything that the Itouch can and serves as a phone. My 360 can play multiplat games shared with a PC and multiplat games shared with the PS3. You cannot play L4D on your PS3 and to simply say "oh it doesn't matter since I have a PC" is kind of ignoring the point. Platform Exclusives do more damage in the sense that the other platforms cannot play those certain games. This is mainly why I consider 360/PC only games or PS3/PC and or PS3/PSP games the same value as a platform exclusive. I definitely agree, however, that the non-Microsoft published 360/PC games are not very iconic games for the 360 since they usually have more features on the PC. Still, an inferior version is better than no version.

BTW 360 version has dedicated servers, and all of the L4D DLC had been free on it until recently (Just when you think I've covered everything in the rant LOL, I might have to make a part 2...titled "fuck off Microsoft").

You're lucky we don't have any PC elitists here...

To PC elitists, 360 haz nu xclusives because most of them are on PC.

Alan, Please watch this video(at least the first half).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j72CmyIx-PA&feature=channel_video_title

we're way off topic so i'm not going to say another word.

I'm gonna freak if MS doesn't announce any NEW games on 360 for E3.

X11 was a fucking disappointment.

also I really really don't like BBC. He tries to act intelligent and better than everyone else when his arguments are just sugar-coated fanboyism.

I'm Michael Scott and he's Toby.

/unlock

Thread cleaned.

Do not go off-topic again.

In response to Uncharted thread that got derailed:

BlackStigma wrote:

Ihsahn wrote:

Derp sorry meant $60/year.

Point is why the fuck should I pay $60? Why do I need to pay for features I get for free? Hell, why did the PC version of L4D2 get free DLC and the 360 one didn't?

M$ is bad stuff. Very bad stuff. At least their OS is solid, but I guess that's more so the fact that OS X is awful and Linux is counterintuitive for me.

I don't really know about the PC anymore since I stopped playing on it like 3 years ago but XBL still has a lot of features over PSN and that's why I pay for it. If you don't wanna pay for it then don't. But don't start making a big deal out of it saying it's a rip off because you get ripped off with basically anything you buy. A 2 litter bottle of sold costs like 25 cents to produce but is sold for $1.50. People sell HDMI cables for 30-900 dollars at Best Buy when they're all exactly the same and cost like 3 dollars to make. XBL is enjoyable and 60 a year is easily affordable. And if it's that big of a deal to you then buy it at Amazon for 40 or something.

Features? Like what? $60/y for cross game chat? Sure, comparatively XBL is better when factoring in all the hacking shit recently, but the price tag is stupid because you look at the PC and we get all those features plus more without paying a dime. So you're essentially giving them $60/y for no reason. Server costs are hardly a big deal because PS3 maintains theirs for free and they're, in MLD's words, "the last place bitch." Obviously they got hacked and all that shit, but that's irrelevant to server stability.

So again, why should I pay money for something I already get for free? Cross game chat? Skype, Vent, Teamspeak etc. Platform for downloading games? Steam and other websites. Deals? Get 'em all the time. What is it that makes the 360's online worth paying for is my question.

For 50-60 bucks a year I've been getting a service that always worked flawlessly. In fact, the only time I've ever had problems with XBL was last month, but incidentally it turned out to be NAT settings that was making connectivity to XBL really bad. PSN works great but there are things that are annoying about it. Every now and then I hear about firmware updates doing something weird to people's PS3. Downloads are slow AF too. That last firmware update which was about 170 MB took like 40 minutes. In that time I could download a 1 GB demo on XBL.

It's just small, argueablly insignificant things that make XBL better than PSN plus XGC ofcourse. And as long as the service continues to work I'm not going to complain. With a free service you can't really complain but as long as XBL is subscription based MS will always make sure that any huge problems are fixed ASAP. There are also discounts during the holidays that MS gives to gold members. I not only got XBL gold at a discounted price but I also bought the All-Fronts Gears 2 mappack for half-price.

This rant wasn't really about the console or it's services...it's about how Microsoft is not very smart about securing iconic Xbox games. If they had big studios like Bungie, Bioware, Epic Games, etc as 1st party developers under their belt then the 360's lineup of exclusives would be solid every year.

Ihsahn wrote:

In response to Uncharted thread that got derailed:

BlackStigma wrote:

Ihsahn wrote:

Derp sorry meant $60/year.

Point is why the fuck should I pay $60? Why do I need to pay for features I get for free? Hell, why did the PC version of L4D2 get free DLC and the 360 one didn't?

M$ is bad stuff. Very bad stuff. At least their OS is solid, but I guess that's more so the fact that OS X is awful and Linux is counterintuitive for me.

I don't really know about the PC anymore since I stopped playing on it like 3 years ago but XBL still has a lot of features over PSN and that's why I pay for it. If you don't wanna pay for it then don't. But don't start making a big deal out of it saying it's a rip off because you get ripped off with basically anything you buy. A 2 litter bottle of sold costs like 25 cents to produce but is sold for $1.50. People sell HDMI cables for 30-900 dollars at Best Buy when they're all exactly the same and cost like 3 dollars to make. XBL is enjoyable and 60 a year is easily affordable. And if it's that big of a deal to you then buy it at Amazon for 40 or something.

Features? Like what? $60/y for cross game chat? Sure, comparatively XBL is better when factoring in all the hacking shit recently, but the price tag is stupid because you look at the PC and we get all those features plus more without paying a dime. So you're essentially giving them $60/y for no reason. Server costs are hardly a big deal because PS3 maintains theirs for free and they're, in MLD's words, "the last place bitch." Obviously they got hacked and all that shit, but that's irrelevant to server stability.

So again, why should I pay money for something I already get for free? Cross game chat? Skype, Vent, Teamspeak etc. Platform for downloading games? Steam and other websites. Deals? Get 'em all the time. What is it that makes the 360's online worth paying for is my question.

So what? It's not like playing online on a PC is better, it's just cheaper, that's it. But XBL fees are really cheap. Why do you make such a big deal out of it? One gas refill is the price of XBL. 60 dollars a year is nothing compared to basically anything people do in real life. Besides when compared to PSN and the Wii Network it's far superior. XBL is really fun, fees are dirt cheap. That's my point.

Because M$ is taking people's money just because they can. I don't think you understand the principality behind it all. I'm not arguing that it isn't cheap, but rather that there is zero reason to pay for it. That's 60 bucks or 30 or 10 or whatever the fuck it is that I could have spent somewhere else.

And PC gaming being better is pretty debatable. I'd almost argue that it's objectively better in the sheer amount of features, but that's not really the topic at hand.

XBL flawless? lol someone then please explain why i lag when i play firefight on Halo Reach, it doesn't happen as often when i play on Team Slayer or SWAT, but it still happens and it gets pretty annoying.

Funny how you can say that $60 is nothing to someone like an adult or someone who makes money, but that fee is the reason 4 of my friends who started this gen of consoles with 360 ended up getting a ps3 instead. Yes they work for a living, yes they make good money, but people who actually have to pay for rent, cell phone, electricity, internet and so on, they look at that fee and say "fuck that" and MS has the nerve to make it $10 more.

ZOMG you get discounts on Holidays??? lol everyone gets discounts on holidays, you don't have to be a Plus member to get em, Plus members simply get a bigger discount than what is offered to everyone else.
Steam easily gives the best deals tho, no one can deny that.

BUT i gotta say, you don't HAVE to pay $60, i have 5 months of XBL and all i payed was $1, so yeah its easy to pay less than the actual price, you just gotta keep an eye out for offers.

I've had a near flawless experience with XBL so far.

Reach lags on Firefight, true. Never said there aren't any games that lag. Black Ops and other games that use P2P connectivity have issues.

While I play UC2 online sometimes my friends can't connect with me. Even in a lagtastic game like Gears 2 I don't have these issues.

XBL gold members constantly get discounts though. There are "deal of the week" and all that stuff. Definitely more discounts than PSN non-PLus

I'm with Ihsan on this one. Only one input to his whole 'point'. Why shouldn't MS let you play multiplayer FOR FREE and charge you say, $40?, for all those other features (discounts, XGC, ESPN, etc.)

With games like Black Ops, it's like paying fucking $120 for a single game. (Seriously guys, who plays Black Ops for the campaign?)

Let me play my multiplayer for free and I'm a happy person. But ask me to pay $60 of my hard-earned money ($10 of which goes to Activision, lulz) and that pisses me the fuck off. Especially when I already had to pay $60 for a game that I already own and that I should have full accessibility to after a single purchase.

Hypnotoad wrote:

I'm with Ihsan on this one. Only one input to his whole 'point'. Why shouldn't MS let you play multiplayer FOR FREE and charge you say, $40?, for all those other features (discounts, XGC, ESPN, etc.)

With games like Black Ops, it's like paying fucking $120 for a single game. (Seriously guys, who plays Black Ops for the campaign?)

Let me play my multiplayer for free and I'm a happy person. But ask me to pay $60 of my hard-earned money ($10 of which goes to Activision, lulz) and that pisses me the fuck off. Especially when I already had to pay $60 for a game that I already own and that I should have full accessibility to after a single purchase.

I agree that the online multiplayer should be free with silver, but all the other features are worth paying for. I just hate how ignorant fanboys pass off XBL like it's the same thing as PSN. But in all seriousness, if you take advantage of the discounts on gold membership off the dashboard, you could be saving alot of cash. Or hell, just get it at Amazon for like 45 bucks. The only time I've ever paid full price for XBL gold was when I first got my Xbox.

Sovereign Alan wrote:

Hypnotoad wrote:

I'm with Ihsan on this one. Only one input to his whole 'point'. Why shouldn't MS let you play multiplayer FOR FREE and charge you say, $40?, for all those other features (discounts, XGC, ESPN, etc.)

With games like Black Ops, it's like paying fucking $120 for a single game. (Seriously guys, who plays Black Ops for the campaign?)

Let me play my multiplayer for free and I'm a happy person. But ask me to pay $60 of my hard-earned money ($10 of which goes to Activision, lulz) and that pisses me the fuck off. Especially when I already had to pay $60 for a game that I already own and that I should have full accessibility to after a single purchase.

I agree that the online multiplayer should be free with silver, but all the other features are worth paying for. I just hate how ignorant fanboys pass off XBL like it's the same thing as PSN. But in all seriousness, if you take advantage of the discounts on gold membership off the dashboard, you could be saving alot of cash. Or hell, just get it at Amazon for like 45 bucks. The only time I've ever paid full price for XBL gold was when I first got my Xbox.

You mean the same ignorance that PS+ gets? If you take full advantage of the discounts and FREE FULL GAMES that they offer, you're saving more money than XBL discounts will ever give you fifteen-fold.

That's not even on-topic.

I'm saying that only a tool would pay full price for XBL gold. PS+ subscription and XBL subscription are 2 different things. PS+ is practically only for discounts. While XBL gold is an online service with various features.

Sovereign Alan wrote:

That's not even on-topic.

I'm saying that only a tool would pay full price for XBL gold. PS+ subscription and XBL subscription are 2 different things. PS+ is practically only for discounts. While XBL gold is an online service with various features.

Then I guess I'm a tool. Deals don't pop up all the time, you know.

XBL shouldn't be an online service. I say slash the price and keep the features. Make online free.

XBL and PSN are "online services." >.> Deals don't pop up all the time but they do pop up often enough on the dash to save you alot of money on just online fees alone. You could also go to amazon.com where they pretty much always have discounted prices on gold membership.

My only criticism of Live is that there isn't different levels for the subscription service. Some people don't want all the features but are forced to pay full price anyways.