• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • Hi Guest. We've rebooted and consolidated our Communities section, so be sure to check it out and subscribe to some threads. Thanks!

Opinion Drama The Jimquisition - It's Microsoft's Fault That Videogames Are Bad

Rubberwald

Member
Feb 18, 2019
68
45
190
Threads like this always make me smile. I've been gaming for more than 30 years, owned pretty much every console there was/is, and somehow I've never felt better playing games than now on my xbox one x. While other consoles are eventually sold, given to friends/family, collecting dust, MS's latest console gives me a very optimistic feeling on what to expect from gaming in the near future. That and the fact that I have at least 30 awesome games on my backlog that I can't wait to play given the time and opportunity.
 

TriSuit666

Neo Member
Jul 2, 2018
39
13
130
Just watched the video - first one in a while for Sterling - and boy, hasn't the production quality slipped.

This is some 2016 level bullshittery from him though.
 

Quezacolt

Member
Jan 8, 2019
207
328
345
I havent watched the video, and dont really have intention of doing it since i can't be bothered to listen to jim's sterling, but in a way, i agree with the title. I wouldn't say that videogames are bad now, or that Microsoft is the main reason why we deal with so much bs from publishers, but we have to admit that MS has a big part in that.

Microtransactions, paid online, too much focus on online itself, etc... I think some of these things hurt gaming more than most would like to admit.
 

Son_of_Zardoz

Member
May 15, 2017
480
351
310
I always enjoy reading the fucking stupid opinions that blame all console online pay services on MS. Remember when MS started that on the OG Xbox and how small of a fraction of the gaming market it was at the time? Or how it's gospel here that the 360 didn't "win" it's generation either (which again, dumb fucking concept) but yet it's competitors who were selling more somehow couldn't stay the course and resist charging for online pay. Can't blame that on MS. If if bothered you so badly you should have spoken with your wallet and not bought any console that followed that path. So where was this outrage back then, at least where was the action spurred by this outrage? Oh yeah that's right, everybody still bought it and now they want to cry in hindsight. Can't have it both ways.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Isa and FranXico

cireza

Member
Jun 1, 2014
4,726
1,411
560
We are in this shit because of Sony and how they transformed the market back then with the PS1. Never had any interest in the kind of games they were advertising back then, and nothing has changed. They kept building on these kind of games and it eventually became the most important games for the market in the West. Cinematic Artistic Pretentious Shit Games. That actually fail at being games to begin with.

Zero interest in their first party output since forever.

Not saying that Microsoft is doing much better. And Nintendo neither. Even though they don't make the same kind of games.

Third Parties are the ones that make good games.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: D_Dark

bishopcruz

Member
Dec 6, 2006
3,547
4
1,040
Miami, FL
How is it Japanese companies get a pass on all of this? When I think of some of the most annoying and overall overpriced DLC it's often the Japanese titles, how many hundreds of dollars can you spend if you want a complete set of costumes in DoA? The total cost of the DLC in Persona 5 was more than the cost of the special edition. How about rereleasing what SHOULD be DLC as a new version of the same game at full price? And nearly all of it adds next to nothing to the gameplay, if anything at all.

Gatcha? A Japanese creation too, lest we forget.
 

FranXico

Member
Dec 7, 2010
6,977
3,796
870
Nobody put a gun to "Sony fanboys" head's and ordered them to buy ps+ subscription. If you paid for it then it's your fault it's standard on playstation.
The problem is not that it's "standard on playstation", or "standard on switch". The problem is that it became industry standard. That's the result of defending crap like online multiplayer paywall over the course of a decade.
 
Last edited:

FranXico

Member
Dec 7, 2010
6,977
3,796
870
I always enjoy reading the fucking stupid opinions that blame all console online pay services on MS. Remember when MS started that on the OG Xbox and how small of a fraction of the gaming market it was at the time? Or how it's gospel here that the 360 didn't "win" it's generation either (which again, dumb fucking concept) but yet it's competitors who were selling more somehow couldn't stay the course and resist charging for online pay. Can't blame that on MS. If if bothered you so badly you should have spoken with your wallet and not bought any console that followed that path. So where was this outrage back then, at least where was the action spurred by this outrage? Oh yeah that's right, everybody still bought it and now they want to cry in hindsight. Can't have it both ways.
The problem is, most of the people who bought it in the last decade are still defending it to this day (see "gun to the head" and "internet costs too" defenses).
 
  • Like
Reactions: D_Dark
Sep 5, 2018
319
412
400
Ireland
www.twitch.tv
Why does this garbage keep getting it's own individual threads? It's pure clickbait nonsense for someone with no meaningful industry insight and nothing particularly relevant to actual say.

There are countless other channels on YouTube that actually create good original content, and aren't just shock jockeys, and they deserve far more attention than these dumpster fire videos.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Isa and Lord Yellow
Mar 8, 2018
649
652
345
That's simply not true though. At launch MS went in hard not just with MTX but with lootbox crap in almost every game. They had that EA partnership after all.
It's true - The Last of Us, Driveclub, Killzone:Shadowfall. At launch Microsoft had partnership with EA(Titanfall) and Sony with Activision(Destiny). Don't know how any of that factors into lootbox argument. MLB has been doing that shit for ages. I am sure Sony titles had more impact than Ryse.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Isa and bishopcruz

Son_of_Zardoz

Member
May 15, 2017
480
351
310
The problem is not that it's "standard on playstation", or "standard on switch". The problem is that it became industry standard. That's the result of defending crap like online multiplayer paywall over the course of a decade.
It does not become industry standard when it's a smaller competitor doing it, regardless of what you think. Sony & Nintendo could have easily said no but they didn't. That's on them. Their fans who so "vehemently oppose" this could have made them pay the price for making that decision by not buying it, but they didn't. That's on them. No amount of people defending it made the others do it. I didn't like it but understood it at first since XBL was the first console service of its kind. Now it's just a revenue stream for MS that once again, not crazy about but I pay for because I use it. How do you defend the other, completely pure, console makers for jumping on the trend?
 
  • Like
Reactions: phil_t98

LittleBusters

Member
Jun 4, 2018
1,190
612
365
Video games always sucked. I know because back in the 1980s I'd make trips to the video game store and most of the titles I didn't like.
 

FranXico

Member
Dec 7, 2010
6,977
3,796
870
I didn't like it but understood it at first since XBL was the first console service of its kind. Now it's just a revenue stream for MS that once again, not crazy about but I pay for because I use it.
You answered your own question. Nobody actually likes or defends online paywalls, but corporations look at the numbers and know that people will give in and pay.

MS already was a larger company than either Sony or Nintendo when they entered the console race. Introducing an exploitative fee for online multiplayer when nobody else would was their choice, that's on them.

When only one company did it, it was up to consumers to make sure this company failed hard and thus send a clear message to other companies. But that's not what people did. Instead MS took market share from Sony the next generation. The message consumers sent to Sony was that it's ok to charge for online.

To time to protest and vote with the wallet was at the beginning, before the situation escalated. By supporting the 360, consumers enabled the practice even before the PS4 was announced.
 
Last edited:

Son_of_Zardoz

Member
May 15, 2017
480
351
310
You answered your own question. Nobody actually likes or defends online paywalls, but corporations look at the numbers and know that people will give in and pay.

MS already was a larger company than either Sony or Nintendo when they entered the console race. Introducing an exploitative fee for online multiplayer when nobody else would was their choice, that's on them.

When only one company did it, it was up to consumers to make sure this company failed hard and thus send a clear message to other companies. But that's not what people did. Instead MS took market share from Sony the next generation. The message consumers sent to Sony was that it's ok to charge for online.

To time to protest and vote with the wallet was at the beginning, before the situation escalated. By supporting the 360, consumers enabled the practice even before the PS4 was announced.
Still doesn't give Sony fans who opposed this an excuse for going along with it no matter how you slice it. Once again saying that a competitor with a very small market share (regardless of how large the company is overall) setting an industry standard is ridiculous. You just said nobody actually likes or defends online paywalls after saying that those paywalls becoming industry standard are the result of said people defending them. It all comes off as people whining that MS has ruined console gaming while all 3 of the console makers have done dumb shit and should all be blamed, individually, for their actions.
 

Ban Puncher

Member
Jun 11, 2012
14,624
1,568
740


When the Christian church is labelling you 'predatory adults', you should probably take a good, hard look at yourself.
 

Three

Member
Oct 26, 2014
3,834
926
430
So killzone:Shadowfall wasn’t a launch title then?
It was. Didn't have lootboxes until a year after, wonder why.
It's true - The Last of Us, Driveclub, Killzone:Shadowfall. At launch Microsoft had partnership with EA(Titanfall) and Sony with Activision(Destiny). Don't know how any of that factors into lootbox argument. MLB has been doing that shit for ages. I am sure Sony titles had more impact than Ryse.
Right Killzone shadowfall had more impact than Halo 5, Gears, Forza, and Ryse pretty much every MS franchise had not simply MTXs but lootbox microtransactions.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: FranXico

Psykodad

Member
Apr 9, 2018
839
738
305
Still doesn't give Sony fans who opposed this an excuse for going along with it no matter how you slice it. Once again saying that a competitor with a very small market share (regardless of how large the company is overall) setting an industry standard is ridiculous. You just said nobody actually likes or defends online paywalls after saying that those paywalls becoming industry standard are the result of said people defending them. It all comes off as people whining that MS has ruined console gaming while all 3 of the console makers have done dumb shit and should all be blamed, individually, for their actions.
I agree somewhat with your opening statement, but you have to take the entire situation into consideration.
The outcry to MS' original Xbox One plans was so massive, that paid online on PS4 was a small price to pay given that Sony wasn't doing any of that.

This was quite the sneaky move made by Sony, but they timed it perfectly.
Sony was hands down the lesser evil and that's how they got away with it.

So it's not exactly comparable to MS initially charging for online multiplayer.

Also noteworthy, Xbox 360 had a large marketshare.
 
Last edited:

Dane

Member
Jul 16, 2019
265
168
210
As if the three didn't do big shitty things

Sony:

-Arrogant as fuck with the PS3, ridiculous price.
-Cut off backwards compatibility for PS2 on PS3, years later introduces the emulated games, but disc owners have to buy them regardless.
-Introduced the very "remaster' thing that are nothing but resolution and framerate bumped ports.
-Made PS+ paid and didn't brought any improvement over its online stability.
-Online Pass (Sony was the first with SOCOM Fireteam Bravo 3 on PSP)
-Paid avatars still stands today.

Microsoft:

-Paid online
-Arrogant with Xbox One shitty DRM and Kinect attempt, the latter one happened and it made 100 dollars more expensive.
-Draculean rules over indie publishing during the 360 era.
-Microsoft Points

Nintendo:

-Poor relationships with third party for decades.
-Stupid censorship rules in NES ans SNES days.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Mister D and Isa

Dane

Member
Jul 16, 2019
265
168
210
The OP video is absolutely right. MSFT is a cancer of videogames.
And we need to address the elephant in the room no one talks about: Sony.
The days when Sony dominated everything with PS2 were the golden age of gaming. The best project, IPs and franchises were born then. The ones that are milked to this day. Therefore the only way to get gaming to their former glory is obviously to make MSFT and Nintendo to stop.
Cough..cough... PS3...Cough
 

DESTROYA

Member
Jan 1, 2011
2,400
1,287
730
USA
I got like 30 seconds in and ........ I can’t stand his act, his routine is getting old and he needs a costume change, he genuinely looks like a moron.
I stopped watching his crap a while ago and now I remember why.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bishopcruz

Barnabot

Member
Oct 16, 2018
2,077
2,700
555
Condemming Microsoft for normalizing microtransactions and paid online for multiplayer while covering up for Sony and Nintendo is like acting with dishonest imo, Jimbo. These two could have chosen to not goin to the same path. They had the option but they didn't choose that.



They are all greedy companies who want all of your money with no shame.

All of them are childhood friends.
 

Pimpbaa

Member
Jun 8, 2004
17,063
371
1,660
43
Canada
They normalized paying to play online and micro-transactions. Xbox players who bought xbox live subscriptions on the original xbox share part of the blame for being stupid enough to pay for peer to peer matchmaking (something that even the smallest devs on pc had no problem providing for free at the time). They have dedicated servers now obviously, but it took a while to get there. Don't have a lot of love for MS for introducing both those things to gaming as a whole.
 
Last edited:

Darknessbear

Member
Apr 7, 2009
6,755
153
855
California
This fucking talentless fat knobhead getting another thread yet again about a fake opinion. Great.
It's my favorite thing though, unoriginal youtubers posting the same negative youtube bullshit, while complaining about Publishers doing the same thing just for money.

Uncreative person yells at creative people for not doing what uncreative british person demands.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Isa

Petrae

Member
Nov 19, 2006
6,017
2,601
1,275
47
West Springfield, MA
www.youtube.com
As if the three didn't do big shitty things

Sony:

-Arrogant as fuck with the PS3, ridiculous price.
-Cut off backwards compatibility for PS2 on PS3, years later introduces the emulated games, but disc owners have to buy them regardless.
-Introduced the very "remaster' thing that are nothing but resolution and framerate bumped ports.
-Made PS+ paid and didn't brought any improvement over its online stability.
-Online Pass (Sony was the first with SOCOM Fireteam Bravo 3 on PSP)
-Paid avatars still stands today.

Microsoft:

-Paid online
-Arrogant with Xbox One shitty DRM and Kinect attempt, the latter one happened and it made 100 dollars more expensive.
-Draculean rules over indie publishing during the 360 era.
-Microsoft Points

Nintendo:

-Poor relationships with third party for decades.
-Stupid censorship rules in NES ans SNES days.
While there can be some disagreement on the specifics, I completely agree that all three platform holders are shitty, and there’s a laundry list of reasons why for each one. Microsoft isn’t the only offender here, and it’s easy to make a similar video of 20+ minutes in length to cite the reasons why Nintendo and/or Sony are just as bad as Microsoft.

At least Jim admits his anti-MS stance to open the video. You know what to expect without having to watch it for long.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mister D

thelastword

Banned
Apr 7, 2006
8,521
2,583
1,380
I love this man. Talk about triggering snowflakes. :messenger_grinning_sweat:
And that he has, he knew the snowflakes, "leave MS alone types" would come rushing in with their insults and vitriol.....Hardly anything substantive and factual to debate against Jim's points, but rather going straight to insults, he's a fat snob, go to the Gym, he wants clicks, he hates MS.....Anybody who says anything about MS hates MS, it's definitely snowflake country.....

As to arguing a point....

Looking back at the last few pages, I realize some people are amnesiacs when It comes to how "pay for online" came to be......The only people to blame for online pay on consoles is MS and especially it's fans. I swear MS has people trying to inject forums with one liners for marketing purposes "LIVE is the best online service", Gamepass is a gamechanger", "Sony is holding the industry back with its stance on crossplay", "Sony is anti-consumer, where is my EA access"...Yet, Nobody talks about EA Access anymore, I bet you most PS fans didn't even bat an eyelid when EA Access debuted on PS...How can I not play with my friends in Fortnite on a competing console? Sony owes us this. Many lines to try and push an MS angle, suspiciously...…..Yet LIVE was different.......It was the biggest push I've seen...

LIVE has to be one of the most marketed services through internet channels everywhere, especially by hardcore MS fans......I remember in the 360/PS3 days, there was a LIVE vs PSN thread almost every week and it was inundated with persons who swore on LIVE, making people believe PSN was the equivalent of being connected on a 28.8 baud Modem in Alaska...….MS fans went in so hard, some even said they were willing to pay more for the excellent service that LIVE was....Lines like; you get what you pay for, the two services are not even in the same stratosphere, LIVE shits all over PSN, NO one talks on PSN, I guess, so we could hear more racism and insults......but yes, people pretended that the PSN was drab shit with no functionality near LIVE...….

So here I was playing SF, Tekken, Soul Calibur Online on PSN, I was having a blast, so I was saying, but it works well, I'm getting lots of salty replies, connections are stable, not bad...….Then I bought a 360, I wanted to try this LIVE and see what all the hubbub was about? I bought SF, Tekken and Soul Calibur there, I mainly played SF on that system and apart from the 1ms deficit on the PS3 version in SF, which was the fault of Capcom and not the network, the experience in playing online was the same......So when I was on 360, I knew everybody I played was on 360 was on the same code, with the same applying to PS3...…..On the PSN, I played a bit of COD online, Battlefield, RFOM, they all run well......I run some Ninja Gaiden Sigma online, that run smoothly...So what was all the hubbub......Of course some SF games lagged, depending on your opponent and location, but there was lag on 360 too. Not saying MS didn't have some extra features, but it was on the same P2P as PSN. No dedicated servers, nothing great enough to justify paying for this over PSN. Yet LIVE fans drove that supposed gargantuan service over PSN....like it was a diamond sink vs a paper sink.....I guess trying their best to justify paying for live or defending MS. PS fans said they were satisfied with their free online, but since 360 had some momentum Xbox fans wasn't hearing any of it...…

So why didn't Sony say no to Payed online? XBOX fans declared war, said Sony had to make an investment, LIVE was like gold and PSN was like river dust......That time Sony was in financial trouble, MS was making a killing on LIVE, so many Xfans subbing to LIVE as if their lives depended on it......Remember, Live at that time only offered you online play, that's it. Yet Sony was in trouble, the whole company, PS3 launched at $600.00 trying to do the best for gamers, full backwards compatibility running back two generations, you think people would sing the praise of BC, they said get the eff outta here with that $600 foreman grill......Bluray on board, people said it was forced down their throats, but now they are the biggest proponent of UHD Bluray when it doesn't matter, because everybody is on netflix etc streaming and the like. Sony Offered the best and most varied way to connect a console, best audio, best graphics that gen, best games, best media console....

So they offered BC, two gens back PS1+PS2, Free Online (which people shitted on because LIVE), best Games, motion control games, 3D, they tried to push things forward and give gamers a great package....They got sullied online, Look at Amirox's famous post......

Yet a struggling Sony seeing that the people were not interested in BC or free online, started cutting features on the future slim consoles, like Linux, which nobody really cared for till then, but pitchforks had to be raised...Damned if you do, damned if you remove it or didn't put it in the first place. So Sony said, we need some cash, we've invested in many triple AAA titles, we're in bad shape, we're selling buildings.....Yet, we won't just charge for online, that would be too effed up, lets do something more...…..We can give them some free games and give them heavy discounts on very regular weekly sales, we'll give them some free videos and shows, avatars, early access to betas, surely we can't just ask persons to pay just for online play, even though MS was doing it all this time.....And we won't put Netflix behind a paywall, or demos or betas.....That's just outrageous....Remember when Sony gave gamers free online last gen, the competition's fans shit on it and said they wanted a paid service, even if it was the same P2P as the paid one....Sony was in a hard place for money or else they would be in further trouble, almost going bankrupt, they said well lets get on this train, if that's what gamers want, but regardless of our troubles we will still do our best to give a service with the gamers in mind......Free games, heavy discounts, no paywall etc etc etc......
 

SLoWMoTIoN

Milk Connoisseur
Feb 2, 2018
8,416
7,258
815
This is stupid and anyone who thinks Spider-Man, God of War, and Horizon: Zero Dawn are the standout hits of the generation is an asshole.
HZD was such a boring fucking game I couldn't get into but it was graphically impressive even for a console game.
 

sol_bad

Member
Jan 17, 2006
2,833
1,375
1,345
You've played ND games haven't you?
I've played Uncharted 4 but that wasn't at the start of the generation, that was 3 years in.
The first 3 years gave us Killzone: Shadow Fall, Knack, Driveclub, MLB 14, MLB15, Bloodbourne, The Order: 1886, The Last of Us Remastered, Uncharted Collection and Until Dawn. As far as I know only Killzone had micro-transactions and they patched it out later on. The Xbox One had 3 games right off the bat with additional revenue opportunities.

I had no issues with micro-transactions in Uncharted 4 until I played the survival mode. And there it was annoying, I didn't spend a single cent on the survival mode but the urge to do so was there just to get items that I wanted. It's down right nasty to be honest. The main reason I paid for PS+ was to play some games that were given away as "free" but I made a vow never to pay for PS+ again or play any multiplayer games that are sold at retail because they most likely have mico-transactions and the urge is real for me.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: joe_zazen
Aug 28, 2019
777
742
395
This is devolving into a really weird argument, saying Jim is ignoring PS4's early microtransactions but using examples like dead multiplayer games like Killzone Shadow Fall which weren't even popular in multiplayer at launch, not to mention that it wasn't sold like microtransactions, they were items in the season pass for the game and even then a further patch made it so every single thing in the season pass could be earned in-game, name me another season pass in history that eventually could be earned in-game? Also using examples like the multiplayer in The Last of Us remastered, as if that was ever a selling point for that game.

Jim's argument is about normalizing the practice and you do that by forcing people to endure them in POPULAR games or POPULAR modes. Putting loot boxes in Halo 5, the most popular multiplayer franchise on the XBOX is not the same as putting them in a mode most people consider throwaway. For all I know there's microtransactions in Doom 2016's multiplayer but who even plays that? In order to normalize something you need people to experience it, this doesn't excuse Sony doing it but it does shield them from the idea that they were major influencers in normalizing it considering most of their exclusives are played for the campaign, not MP, which is pretty much the opposite of how Xbox does exclusives.

Even considering their launch window grievances Sony's recent output has not only been MTX free but often gives out free shit to people who bought the game after release, even Days Gone has been giving out free modes since release. On the other side of the coin is Microsoft shoving MTX into Gears 5.
 
Last edited:

Xenon

Member
So your argument is that Sony's doesn't count because they are less popular modes in the game? Wasnt one of the first predatory examples in console gaming GT6. Something Jim always overlooks. Man has had MS derangement syndrome for years. He is even using the same terminology, normalizing...
Give me a break
 
Last edited:

Psykodad

Member
Apr 9, 2018
839
738
305
So your argument is that Sony's doesn't count because they are less popular modes in the game? Wasnt one of the first predatory examples in console gaming GT6. Something Jim always overlooks. Man has had MS derangement syndrome for years. He is even using the same terminology, normalizing...
Give me a break
Pretty sure he was saying Sony added microtransactions to KZSF despite it not being that popular.

#SonyToo
 
Last edited:

Pallas

Member
May 9, 2018
1,669
1,525
540
Tennessee
Zhugex in particular are notorious xbox defenders.
??? Wasn’t this guy criticized in the past for favoring Sony? I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone mention or suggest that he’s pro Microsoft.

As for the topic, I agree! Microsoft is the video game Industry’s version of the white devil.

Let’s ignore everyone else’s predatory habits in the industry though and believe that they care about us.

After all this industry would be so much better if Microsoft never got into console gaming.
 

demigod

Member
Apr 17, 2007
6,758
2,500
1,280
And that he has, he knew the snowflakes, "leave MS alone types" would come rushing in with their insults and vitriol.....Hardly anything substantive and factual to debate against Jim's points, but rather going straight to insults, he's a fat snob, go to the Gym, he wants clicks, he hates MS.....Anybody who says anything about MS hates MS, it's definitely snowflake country.....

As to arguing a point....

Looking back at the last few pages, I realize some people are amnesiacs when It comes to how "pay for online" came to be......The only people to blame for online pay on consoles is MS and especially it's fans. I swear MS has people trying to inject forums with one liners for marketing purposes "LIVE is the best online service", Gamepass is a gamechanger", "Sony is holding the industry back with its stance on crossplay", "Sony is anti-consumer, where is my EA access"...Yet, Nobody talks about EA Access anymore, I bet you most PS fans didn't even bat an eyelid when EA Access debuted on PS...How can I not play with my friends in Fortnite on a competing console? Sony owes us this. Many lines to try and push an MS angle, suspiciously...…..Yet LIVE was different.......It was the biggest push I've seen...

LIVE has to be one of the most marketed services through internet channels everywhere, especially by hardcore MS fans......I remember in the 360/PS3 days, there was a LIVE vs PSN thread almost every week and it was inundated with persons who swore on LIVE, making people believe PSN was the equivalent of being connected on a 28.8 baud Modem in Alaska...….MS fans went in so hard, some even said they were willing to pay more for the excellent service that LIVE was....Lines like; you get what you pay for, the two services are not even in the same stratosphere, LIVE shits all over PSN, NO one talks on PSN, I guess, so we could hear more racism and insults......but yes, people pretended that the PSN was drab shit with no functionality near LIVE...….

So here I was playing SF, Tekken, Soul Calibur Online on PSN, I was having a blast, so I was saying, but it works well, I'm getting lots of salty replies, connections are stable, not bad...….Then I bought a 360, I wanted to try this LIVE and see what all the hubbub was about? I bought SF, Tekken and Soul Calibur there, I mainly played SF on that system and apart from the 1ms deficit on the PS3 version in SF, which was the fault of Capcom and not the network, the experience in playing online was the same......So when I was on 360, I knew everybody I played was on 360 was on the same code, with the same applying to PS3...…..On the PSN, I played a bit of COD online, Battlefield, RFOM, they all run well......I run some Ninja Gaiden Sigma online, that run smoothly...So what was all the hubbub......Of course some SF games lagged, depending on your opponent and location, but there was lag on 360 too. Not saying MS didn't have some extra features, but it was on the same P2P as PSN. No dedicated servers, nothing great enough to justify paying for this over PSN. Yet LIVE fans drove that supposed gargantuan service over PSN....like it was a diamond sink vs a paper sink.....I guess trying their best to justify paying for live or defending MS. PS fans said they were satisfied with their free online, but since 360 had some momentum Xbox fans wasn't hearing any of it...…

So why didn't Sony say no to Payed online? XBOX fans declared war, said Sony had to make an investment, LIVE was like gold and PSN was like river dust......That time Sony was in financial trouble, MS was making a killing on LIVE, so many Xfans subbing to LIVE as if their lives depended on it......Remember, Live at that time only offered you online play, that's it. Yet Sony was in trouble, the whole company, PS3 launched at $600.00 trying to do the best for gamers, full backwards compatibility running back two generations, you think people would sing the praise of BC, they said get the eff outta here with that $600 foreman grill......Bluray on board, people said it was forced down their throats, but now they are the biggest proponent of UHD Bluray when it doesn't matter, because everybody is on netflix etc streaming and the like. Sony Offered the best and most varied way to connect a console, best audio, best graphics that gen, best games, best media console....

So they offered BC, two gens back PS1+PS2, Free Online (which people shitted on because LIVE), best Games, motion control games, 3D, they tried to push things forward and give gamers a great package....They got sullied online, Look at Amirox's famous post......

Yet a struggling Sony seeing that the people were not interested in BC or free online, started cutting features on the future slim consoles, like Linux, which nobody really cared for till then, but pitchforks had to be raised...Damned if you do, damned if you remove it or didn't put it in the first place. So Sony said, we need some cash, we've invested in many triple AAA titles, we're in bad shape, we're selling buildings.....Yet, we won't just charge for online, that would be too effed up, lets do something more...…..We can give them some free games and give them heavy discounts on very regular weekly sales, we'll give them some free videos and shows, avatars, early access to betas, surely we can't just ask persons to pay just for online play, even though MS was doing it all this time.....And we won't put Netflix behind a paywall, or demos or betas.....That's just outrageous....Remember when Sony gave gamers free online last gen, the competition's fans shit on it and said they wanted a paid service, even if it was the same P2P as the paid one....Sony was in a hard place for money or else they would be in further trouble, almost going bankrupt, they said well lets get on this train, if that's what gamers want, but regardless of our troubles we will still do our best to give a service with the gamers in mind......Free games, heavy discounts, no paywall etc etc etc......
WTF you paid for Live? I’m disappointed in you! I bought a 360 one month after it launched and not once did I pay for Live. My nephew played Halo and wanted to play multiplayer and I told the fucker he pay for Live, not me.

I remember all that shit tho. Xbox fanboys be praising Live like it was worth paying for when you could play for free on PC and PSN.

Next up, gamepass :messenger_tears_of_joy: