Not piloting a mecha


CRank: 10Score: 0

Why We're Screwed Even if We Don't Buy an Xbox One

Time passes so quickly, we're already half-way through October and those Next-Gen consoles that seemed so far away are just looming over the horizons. Lines have been drawn in the sand, sides have been taken, shots have been fired and people lost their jobs in the process.

In an effort to turn the very nature of Gaming into a Nightmaish Corporate Wetdream, Microsoft attempted to force themselves on gamers and violate them in every way imaginable until they have no choice but to consent to a future where the consumer services the corporate machine.

Only the consumer wasn't having any of it.

Long story short, Microsoft caved and like the rapist that suddenly backs off because he was caught in the act by the cops, we're supposed to clap and pat them on the back for saying "Eh, well if Gamers didn't want me to violate them they shouldn't have kept those wallets wide open." Frankly, I'm not one to troll the countless sites on the internet and eschewing hatred for the Big M (plenty of people are doing that, God bless 'em) but I find it hard not to be offended to the very core when Microsoft attempts to act all morally superior when every Joe and Jane Gamer called them out on their b.s.

Yet even after I and everyone know had broken ties with Microsoft this generation, are we truly safe from their machinisations? The answer, quite simply, is no. This next gen, we'll still be royally screwed by the influence of the Big M.

1) Leading the Charge from Behind: Of the two, the Xbox One is almost half as powerful as the PS4 and yet the latter is getting ports that do not take advantage of its graphical prowess due to Devs living in fear of Microsof. We've seen evidence of this before, Microsoft using their infinite coffers to pay off Devs and now that shiny game for your PS4 gets stuck on 720P just because it doesn't want to be prettier than its cousin. Once again, it's up to Sony's First Party Devs to wow us next gen but it still stucks to be saddled

2) DLC, Mighty is He: Microsoft infected the genre with that cancer known as DLC the moment Horse Armor trotted unto the Xbox Marketplace. While I'm not against DLC as a way to enhance a game, unfortunately Microsoft was allowed to get away with so much crap that DLC turned from a game enhancing tool to the actual content of supposed game. When you get away with releasing an unfinished product (Forza 5), is it unkind to say the Capcom is entirely justified when they say their problems aren't making fun, enjoyable games but that there isn't ENOUGH DLC. More and more content will be cut on Multi-platform games, courtsey of the Big M's business practises.

3) Call of Doody, Call of Doody: Microsoft caught Lightning in a Bottle when they snagged the Dude-Bro Douchebags who probably bought only ten games for their Xbox 360 (Here's a hint, all shooters). Like Nintendo's own slice of the pie, Microsoft wants to lock this demographic in an iron-vice and never let 'em go. Everything about the Xbox One, from the very first reveal (where they only showed ONE game...a shooter, gee, I wonder why?) to the Doritos and Mountain Dew Ads that will plaster on your screens, was aimed at this particular demographic and the rest be damned. Yet, even though we are very content with our RPGS and Adventure games, we're still being inadvertedly harmed by this group. In an attempt to snag some of those numbers, Sony tried to get as many Shooters as possible in hopes of getting its own Halo. Shuhei Yoshida lamented the amount of shooters this gen (indeed, I only left my 360 and paid attention to the PS3 when it stopped peddling to this demographic and did it's own thing). Capcom gutted their Japanese roots and transformed their beloved franchises into grittier, action-y versions hoping to catch some of that trickle. While I have high hopes for Mark Cerny who champions the return to PS1's variety, I fear that Sony will cave once again and champion for more shooters.

4) DRM to Rule Us All: DRM will be back. It is inevitble. Please don't fool yourselves, you're embarassing the both of us. Several MS Execs came out and stated that their vision remains 'Unchanged' and once they have a large enough install base, they WILL patch it back in citing 'rising costs' and other soulless jargon and you know what...they will be lauded because people are that easy to fool. For Pete's sake, people are paying MORE for the privlege to see Ads on their Gold Membership!

Mark my words, this generation will be a litmus test for the consumer with Microsoft, once again, wading their waters and testing just how much thievery they can get away with...and once other companies start noticing, they'll follow suit.

After all, this is a world where people defend 'poor, selfless' Microsoft against the sub-humans who live in other countries...

The story is too old to be commented.
TwistingWords1682d ago (Edited 1682d ago )

1. PC games never seem to lose their lustre current and next gen games, so is MS paying developers to make the PC version the best to make the PS4 look bad? If so thanks MS!

2. MS didn't invent DLC but they had the first console that introduced it largely, they didn't force it upon everyone and Sony has enough content of their own which is paid DLC from their own first party devs so whats your issue with that?

3.Call of Duty is one of the best selling games on the PS3, most best selling games on the PS3 are shooters, so prepare to don your shooter hat son for the next gen.

4. Every console has DRM. Copy protection is a form of DRM, when you try to play a game on the xbox and PS3 the console will checksum the disk to make sure its a legit copy... a form of DRM, Sony had online passes to unlock the online features of a game... A quasi form of DRM

So is this blog basically trying to say that Sony is trying to copy MS?

colonel1791682d ago

1. YES! Microsoft has paid developers to make the PS games look the same or worse that Xbox. Peter Moore said it in an interview, and even Major Nelson has said it in PR jargon. They don't care about PC because they can't do anything about it, but they have definitely tried to stop Playstation from succeeding. Peter Moore even said that the whole purpose the Xbox 360 exists is to f..k Sony.

caseh1682d ago

"1. YES! Microsoft has paid developers to make the PS games look the same or worse that Xbox. Peter Moore said it in an interview"

Quite possibly the most ridiculous thing i've heard as of late on this site and thats saying something. Do you have a source for this?

DragonKnight1682d ago

1. PC is an open platform that can't be controlled. There's literally no way MS can prevent games looking better on the PC at all. Plus, PC is their main market for their OS and it'd be counter-productive to make any attempts against it.

2. What's your point? What's worse, setting the precedent or working within it?

3. And yet the PS3 still manages to sell games of a wide variety very well, never completely focusing on one genre, while the Xbox, Xbox 360, and looking like the Xbox One still has a heavy focus on shooters. If anyone is driving the shooter genre to stagnation it's Microsoft.

4. There is no console that has, or had, the DRM that Microsoft wanted. No console in history as potentially anti-consumer and restrictive as the Xbox One. Your weak examples don't stack up against Microsoft's initiatives.

maniacmayhem1682d ago

"If anyone is driving the shooter genre to stagnation it's Microsoft."

How is MS driving the shooter genre stagnate? Only two of their most popular IP's are shooters, Gears and Halo.

"No console in history as potentially anti-consumer and restrictive as the Xbox One."

And now it doesn't and never had because it was removed and never brought to the consumer so that statement is just as weak as your accusation.

"and looking like the Xbox One still has a heavy focus on shooters."

Really? Looking at the launch there isn't one MS owned FPS title. In fact the X1 exclusive launch line up is way more varied than the PS4 which is very surprising. How can you say the X1 focus is still on shooters? Or is your definition of shooters anything with guns?

This blog is terrible, it screams fanboy rant. He basically blames every video game fault on MS which is not even remotely true. Anyone with two brain cells would know this.

One trip through is comments and we can already see his main purpose here on N4G.

DragonKnight1682d ago

You do understand that Microsoft, like the other 2, actively search out games they want right? Microsoft does everything they can to make people think CoD is an Xbox game, and it's not the only game they do that to. Most of what they target are shooters. Just because they don't OWN the games doesn't mean they don't promote having more of them.

NewMonday1682d ago

1- I think we will see many 3rd party games look better on the PS4 and MS will just have to live with that because they cant pay off everybody, but we will not find many developers talk down any console, even when Respawn talk about the XB1 they never mentioned the PS4 negatively.

so publicly developers will try to stay positive but the games will speak for themselves.

OrangePowerz1681d ago

They could go a different approach compared to paying off. They could threaten to not promote the game via ad`s or at worst threaten to not approve the game for release on their console. The last option would be very unlikely tough as the PR backlash would be huge.

MS already has many things in place to undermine the competition like having rules that under certain conditions downloadable XBLA games can`t launch on the PS3 after a certain time frame even tough the game isn`t published by MS.

aceitman1681d ago

pc is not ms competition , sony is and ms sure is hell dug in there pocket to get stuff and to make the 360 better ports , this gen , ithink will be different cause devs will see the gamers will be gaming on the ps4 way more than xbone. sales for xbone will not be good after launch , even though at launch the ps4 will sell way more than xbone. 5 and 6 weeks till the day we will see.

max05831681d ago

Another article that is spewing crap.well said

memots1681d ago

There is unfortunately some truth in this "spewed crap" but its what it is.

nypifisel1679d ago

It's actually some proper concerns voiced in this 'article'. MS is not doing gamers any favours.

s45gr321679d ago

That last sentence rings true in the sense now Sony is ensuring to get exclusive DLC content which is more likely to happen. Charges to pay to play online. No backwards compatibility ; however, it was Sony not Microsoft that brought the remastered edition of PS2 games were praise for it instead of complaining the removal of BC. .....

Juste_Belmont1679d ago (Edited 1679d ago )

The only HD Edition of a game I bought this gen was the Ico/Shadow of the Colossus collection, and only because I didn't buy them on the PS2.

I still have all of my PS2 games and a PS2 to play them on if I want, and they still look pretty good, since I use component cables with my PS2.

Removing BC was a negative for me too, but I understand why Sony did it. Hopefully, they will have some sort of free service to stream PS3 games if you already have the disc.

Juste_Belmont1679d ago (Edited 1679d ago )

The only point you mentioned that I disagree with is the first. PC games look as good as they do because of the modding community. Skyrim on PC looks a lot better than on consoles only after you've modded it and are running it on a high end PC. PC games can look good, but they still have to be able to run on minimum specs, which will probably make the game look equal to, or even worse than their console counterparts.

Oh, and there's also the issue of updating drivers, making sure the game installed properly, and making the necessary tweaks to get the game to run properly. Consoles may not have the benefits of PC gaming, but it's a lot more convenient. I'm attempting to join the PC gaming crowd, but you have to admit that it's a lot of work.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 1679d ago
Nicaragua1682d ago

This is leaning a bit towards fanboy ranting, but it has a picture of Don Mattrick next to a turd so i approve.

Fireseed1682d ago

Just check his number of bubbles compared to his join date. Guessing it's someone who was banned for previous fanboyism out on a rampage with a new account.

Section81682d ago (Edited 1682d ago )

Look at my join date and my bubbles. I guess I suck.

Edit: I just looked at yours and you only have 3 since 2010. Find a different argument. Although I also like the picture.

360ICE1681d ago

Also known as two turds

Convas1682d ago

This is nothing more than a rant. Multiple Call of Duty titles are in the top 10 most sold games on PS3.

"The Xbox One is almost half as powerful as the PS4" this is not even remotely let alone TECHNICALLY true.

Say whatever you want about DRM, but it's not coming back like how MS originally planned for it. That is a foregone conclusion now.

Don Mattrick is a corporate tool, I'll give you that, but everything else here is the common sensationalist tripe we see on the front page everyday.

DragonKnight1682d ago

"Say whatever you want about DRM, but it's not coming back like how MS originally planned for it. That is a foregone conclusion now."

I would like to ask you what you think "100% committed to our original vision" means?

OrangePowerz1681d ago

Well all it needs is a Firmware update and they are back to the previous DRM. So they could very easily go back to the DRM they had planned at the start. It would piss of people but by that time they would have already bought the console and games and likely would keep using it anyway and you wouldn`t be able to make a class action lawsuit because the EULA will contain the standard portion that you can`t make one.

Software_Lover1682d ago

How does this stuff get approved?

Nicaragua1682d ago

like i said, it had a funny picture.

wishingW3L1682d ago

this makes you wonder about how mentally stable most N4G users really are. XD

DragonKnight1682d ago

Be dismissive of what this blog says all you want but the writing is on the walls. There is precedent to back up what has happened, and MS seeks to create precedent for the Future. I've said this all along, Microsoft is bad for gaming. They are, 90% of the time (meaning not always but most of the time), the first to introduce the most anti-consumer/pro-corporate policies and programs into gaming.

They introduced microtransactions and DLC into console gaming. They may not be the only ones to use it, but they created the precedent and set forth the chain of events that has led us to the point where what was once free unlockables is now cut out content being re-sold.

They introduced pay to play online. Many will say "yeah, but look what you get for it." That's not the point. Give them an inch, they take a mile. Are any of you going to say that you are in agreement that you should have to pay for your ISP and then pay Microsoft to access your right to use it? "Bu bu but Sony is now doing it with the PS4." And it's equally wrong, but at least it won't be forced for every game.

They introduced ads in a paid for service. Something that doesn't happen anywhere else. In fact all over the PC market you see "pay to have ads removed and get _____ benefit" but MS doesn't care that you paid for their service, they're still going to shove the ads down your throat and you defend it. Give them an inch and they take a mile.

Microsoft are trying to introduce a camera that can record your vital signs and physical reactions to target ads to you. Disregarding their ties with the NSA and the potential that is there for them to invade your personal life, they are trying to create new ways for people to buy and sell your physical reactions, to annoy you with product placements and ads for a service you paid for and shouldn't have to be subjected to seeing ads.

How anyone can think that this is in our best interest, in gaming's best interests, is a baffling mystery that will never be solved. Give them an inch and they'll take a mile.

Do you really think it's going to get better and Microsoft won't try some new anti-consumer/pro-corporate schemes?

maniacmayhem1682d ago (Edited 1682d ago )

"They introduced microtransactions and DLC into console gaming."

MS didn't, third party companies did. And you best believe it would have been on PS3 too if they would have released first.

"They introduced pay to play online."

Yes they did, and it is baffling on why they did it. But now that Sony is doing it for PS4 I actually am starting to believe that Sony offered their multiplayer for free at launch as a direct competition (selling point) to Live. Especially considering that later PS+ was introduced and that the Camera for PS4 was allegedly removed to not only keep cost down but so they wouldn't sell PS4 at a loss if included. (which I don't believe)

"They introduced ads in a paid for service"

Again, these supposed ads featured are actual content found in the Marketplace. They advertise DLC, games, new movies and other content that when clicked take you directly to the item. They are not intrusive and they do not take away anything from the gaming experience. In fact it helps, especially when you're not aware on what was released. PS3 has the same thing when it shows a preview on the side of what's new in their market place.

Oh, but sometimes in the faaaar right hand corner, sometimes there is an unrelated ad. But seriously...

"Microsoft are trying to introduce a camera that can record your vital signs and physical reactions to target ads to you."

Facebook, Apple, Google and every company known to man has some sort of tracking or analytics to sell better to consumers. In no way does that diminish me from playing the games I love or want. And if all that will help filter out Baby's Day Out the Game or Pony Farm Ride Interactive from being on my dash then more power to them.

"Do you really think it's going to get better and Microsoft won't try some new anti-consumer/pro-corporate schemes?"

Don't know, but if they do and it works and they make a million you don't think Sony will follow suit? They have already implemented a bunch from MS. And they are a business too.

I think WiiU is every gamer's best option. Free Online, great indie support, awesome innovative controller and some of the best original ip's.

I'll see you there!

(I should have replied to this post instead of the other one)

DragonKnight1681d ago

"MS didn't, third party companies did....

Actually Microsoft did with Live and the original Xbox. Feel free to look it up at your convenience.

"Yes they did..."

The problem I have with your speculation specifically about PS3's online is that if you were right then there would be a point where Sony wouldn't have to bother keeping PS3's access free. According to Sony, PS3 online gameplay will always be free. What would be the point in that especially after MS stops supporting the Xbox 360? Plus, again, speculation. Also, there was an article recently that stated that Sony would have sold the PS4 at $400 with or without the camera and that the higher ups actually nixed it so they wouldn't take a bigger loss on the consoles.

"Again, these supposed ads featured are actual content..."

Dude, come on. You know better than that. You know there are ads for Doritos, Mountain Dew, Pizza Hut, and other non-gaming products. Are you really trying to defend ads?

"Facebook, Apple, Google..."

Firstly, irrelevant to gaming. Secondly, weak argument is weak and yet used far too much. Why are you trying to justify this by saying "well if others do it it must be ok." Haven't you ever heard the saying "if ______ jumps off a bridge does that mean you have to as well?" Same principle.

"In no way does that diminish..."

How about the fact that the filter that should be in place is the money you pay for Live and that you didn't pay to have ads, you paid to play games. Seriously, why are you trying to justify this? Give them an inch and they'll take a mile. You justifying this, or at best casting it aside, is the attitude they want for when they introduce worse. And you'll agree to it in the EULA and when you finally realize how big an actual problem it is it'll be too late.

"Don't know, but..."

That's the actual problem I'm addressing here. If one company gets away with it thanks to the apathy and/or justifications that you employ, the others will soon follow. Can you actually say that that sounds like a bright future good for gamers and not instead a future of corporate self-interest?

"I think WiiU..."

Problem is it's gonna be devoid of games by comparison to the other two because Nintendo's way of doing things is antiquated.

maniacmayhem1681d ago (Edited 1681d ago )

"You know there are ads for Doritos, Mountain Dew, Pizza Hut, and other non-gaming products. Are you really trying to defend ads?"

I have the good fortune of working from home today while my company re-models. I just turned on my 360 and I can tell you literally that there are no ads for Doritos, Mountain Dew or Pizza Hut.

The first tab is an ad for Call of Duty:Ghosts, Explore Xbox Live, Xbox One tour, Monday Night Football for their ESPN app and a true ad for the new movie Ender's Game which tells you about some kind of sweepstake for a Halo game.

That is all game content, game related or coming soon for the Xbox 360 and One. I'm not defending ads Dragon because there's none there. You are assuming though that the dash is filled with products not related to gaming on the Xbox 360 and that is completely false.

"...that if you were right then there would be a point where Sony wouldn't have to bother keeping PS3's access free."

Yes they would, that is their main selling point for the PS3, free online. And as you can see they reversed that for PS4. Why didn't they keep online free for PS4? And don't say server costs, because PS3 supposedly had dedicated servers too. And they offered PS+ for ps3, for what reason?

"Seriously, why are you trying to justify this?"

A better question is why does this bother you so much? Will these supposed ads stop you from purchasing Watchdogs, BF4 or any other game you are excited for? You are making a big deal out of nothing. That is the real point. TV flashes a coke commercial every other minute but never does that change my taste for Orange Sunkist. So how do these ads stop you from playing the games you want?

You pay for Live or you'll pay for PSplus does it matter what they put on either of those? No, because you'll be paying to play online regardless.

"Problem is it's gonna be devoid of games by comparison to the other two because Nintendo's way of doing things is antiquated"

Nintendo has the games, it may not have all the 3rd party games but it has enough to gain interest to any gamer. And if some people's worries are ads, price and free online then WiiU is the way to go.

"Why are you trying to justify this by saying "well if others do it it must be ok.""

I am not justifying and I find it funny you keep saying that anytime some one has a different take or opinion than yours. I'm not justifying because I don't care, this type of practice from companies has been going on for years and I am POSITIVE Sony has their own way of tracking what customers want.

So to sit there and be mad about it is ridiculous. Again, this will have no effect on my personal choices for games. And maybe it will, maybe the Xbox will gather the games I do like to play and recommend similar ones based on my past plays. Again, if that is the case than I am all for it.

Not everything has to be some kind of evil, Lex Luthor scheme to rule the world. Some of this can actually be helpful. And if the NSA want to know I prefer Killer is Dead over GTA V, they can have it.

DragonKnight1681d ago

First 3 paragraphs: You yourself mentioned non-gaming ads maniac.

"Oh, but sometimes in the faaaar right hand corner, sometimes there is an unrelated ad."

You don't see any right now, cool. Does that mean they aren't there?

Second Point: What would be the selling point against competition in keeping PSN free for PS3 if they have no competition after support for the Wii and the 360 are dropped? They obviously want to focus more on the PS4 than the PS3 due to the new pay to play model they have so there is no business sense in keeping PSN free on PS3 with no real competition and an a needed focus on the PS4? And why did they start charging for online for PS4? Because of the added features of course. I mean why does MS charge for Live? To make you pay for Youtube?

Third: No, a better question is the original question. Again, give an inch, take a mile. Why are you being complacent?

Fourth: Every year that Nintendo tries to survive only on their first party games, they do a little worse and support for their console ends a little sooner. Nintendo themselves said years ago that they can't survive only on first party titles.

Reply to the Edit: When you say "others are doing it" you are justifying it. Or at the least being complicit in future schemes that are not to anyone's benefit by Microsoft's. If you're so POSITIVE about Sony, show us then. Link your proof of it.

If you want to dismiss this with a ludicrous extreme example like a comic book villain, that's your choice. But being complacent, justifying anti-gamer/anti-consumer practices, and being complicit in Microsoft's pro-corporate actions will just come back to haunt you and all gamers. You want to turn a blind eye to the precedents Microsoft are trying to set, that's your choice. You then forfeit any right to complain in the future.

Agent-861681d ago


Though I agree with most your points and don't like MS myself, there is one wrong thing with your post: "They introduced ads in a paid for service. Something that doesn't happen anywhere else."

Technically, cable is a paid service and most of the channels have ads since they are just re-airing existing channels. Cable has been around a lot longer than Xbox. Also, on the PC, Hulu Plus is a paid service but comes with ads. However, comparing XBL Gold (as a paid service with ads) vs PSN (free service with no ads) does show their arrogance; especially with just about every app being behind their paywall. The free XBL Silver is a joke compared to the free PSN.

That said, I still agree with your sentiment that MS has been and will continue to be bad for the gaming industry. The only thing I ever buy from MS is my operating system since there isn't much of choice (Mac and Linux just don't cut it for my PC gaming, though I'm hoping the Valve OS has a chance). Even then, I only get every other MS OS since they seem to suck every other one: XP = good, Vista = sucks, Win7 = good, Win8 = sucks....see a pattern?

DragonKnight1681d ago

Ah, you got me on that one.

maniacmayhem1681d ago

Again you missed the point and failed to answer it too...

How do these supposed ads effect you playing your game(s)? What difference does it make when you pay for Plus and Live regardless just to access multiplayer?

Again the ads on Xbox Live are for content found on the Marketplace. Are you seriously trying to argue something that's fact.

You said there were ads for Doritos, etc, etc. I told you there wasn't. I looked and they're not there. Do you want me to actively seek them? Does this count as intrusive if I have to actually hunt them down? That alone should tell you what a none issue it is and what a huge deal you're making it out to be.

Your argument is old and not justified and find the only people who use it are sony fanboys desperately trying to find anything to down Live.

- If you really think Sony doesn't do any kind of analytics for their DAU or customers then you are only fooling yourself.

"But being complacent, justifying anti-gamer/anti-consumer practices,"

Again you are over dramatizing and making an issue out of something that isn't there. You keep accusing me of justifying all those practices. It seems it only effects you, because millions others are playing their games and having fun doing it. The reason why I say Lex Luthor plot is because you sound like some rebel militant bucking the system, truth is that this vital sign or whatever will only lead to what you personally want to play as a gamer.

See Dragon it all seems to be tied to games. You can't justify that, then why are you a gamer?

Also you said:

"Microsoft does everything they can to make people think CoD is an Xbox game,"

No they do not Dragon, again you are being ridiculous. I have seen plenty of commercials where a multiplat game was advertised and only the Playstation logo appeared at the end.

Who would MS be fooling that CoD is only on Xbox 360? Especially with CoD being on it's 100th sequel and being number one on PS3.

"Just because they don't OWN the games doesn't mean they don't promote having more of them."

How many more shooters does Xbox have than PS3?? Especially with N4G's claim to fame of PS3 having more exclusives. In fact PS3 seems to have more exclusive shooters than Xbox has. So PS3 seems to be the place for shooters.

DragonKnight1681d ago

Not really maniac. I'm just refusing to acknowledge your changing of the subject. The original point and question is better than yours, you just don't want to answer it.

Then, you ignore what you yourself said about non-gaming ads appearing on Live.

Then you engage in speculation without any proof to back up your claim about Sony or any evidence to show that if you're correct then there are real world results that you can see.

Then you move on to your ridiculous example and saying that I'm over-dramatizing something, completely ignoring that the only reason that what I have said hasn't happened is because Microsoft was forced to reverse their policies before the release of the Xbox One due to mainstream television and pre-order numbers. Also ignoring that every executive at Microsoft is telling you straight to your face that they are committed to their original anti-consumer, pro-control policies. You're also ignoring that Microsoft have lied straight to your face, first saying the Kinect wouldn't ever collect player's personal data and then later saying it will and finally adding a stipulation "if you opt in."

You think you know what Microsoft is going to do with this claiming "oh it's just going to be to tailor game ads to you." You don't know sh*t about what it's going to be about and even if you're right about it, explain why you think it's ok to monitor your vital signs to f*cking sell sh*t to you? What if you went to your doctor and after your routine check up your doctor tried to sell you his brand of multi-vitamins that you didn't need simply because he did blood work on you and wants to make some more money off you? You're really sitting there, justifying it, trying to say "oh hell, that's ok, my body was made to be a tool for advertisements." Are you really that much of a shill?

"No they do not Dragon..."

Are you serious? I guess you haven't been watching any Microsoft conferences then. You're the only person I have ever come across, including die hard Xbox fanboys, who hasn't seen that Microsoft have done everything they can to make people think CoD is an Xbox franchise. DLC Deals with Activision, more Xbox ads for the franchise, Call of Duty being the main gaming focus of the Xbox One reveal. Yeah, they aren't trying to do that at all.

"Who would MS be fooling..."

Why does MS need to record vital data for ads to target to gamers who are already all over the internet looking up games they want to play anyway? They're fooling you with that aren't they?

"How many more shooters..."

And once again you're trying to change the subject. Rather than acknowledge all games, you're trying to make it about exclusives because you know that the PS3 has a higher percentage of exclusive games than the Xbox 360 does. Why are you afraid of using all games maniac?

You've done this the whole time. You are justifying anti-gamer, anti-consumer, pro-corporate tactics; ignoring the precedents that Microsoft is trying to set so the Future will have footholds for even worse policies. There are real world examples of what happenes when you give anyone leeway to do these things. You want to use an extreme and ridiculous example to try and deflate my point? Why don't you ask anybody in the U.S. (or yourself if you're a U.S. citizen) how it felt when Obama admitted to spying on everyone saying "You can't have 100% security and 100% privacy" then ask them how they feel when they realize it's all because they allowed constitutional rights to slowly be chipped away after being told and made to believe that it was for everyone's best interests.

GiantEnemyCrab1680d ago (Edited 1680d ago )

The thing is I see ad's all over the PS3 as well. How many times do I need to see AXE body spray? It's in the ticker, its in the Whats New and it's in the store. They ALL want money and they all stick junk we as gamers don't want to see. But it is far from being specific to MS. I am annoyed by all the ad's.

Anyway, this blog is garbage. I don't have the energy any more to respond to all the false information and emotional exaggerations. Rapist? Really? Grow Up.

maniacmayhem1680d ago

"I'm just refusing to acknowledge your changing of the subject."

I forgot how you never like to answer anything that points out how wrong you are.

More over dramatizing from you, it is getting ridiculous. You like to hammer in these points but fail to answer the true question as a gamer. How will this effect anyone who wants to play Titanfall, DR3, Watchdogs, CoD. All you are doing is harping on and on about what MS ALMOST did with the Xbox One.

You are over dramatizing an issue that is null and void. It's over, get over it.

"You think you know what Microsoft is going to do with this claiming "oh it's just going to be to tailor game ads to you.""

And you do? All of a sudden you know exactly what MS is going to do? You accuse me of speculation and then turn right around and speculate what Microsoft MIGHT do in their future.
This is how absolutely f***ing pathetic and hypocritical you are.

"Microsoft have done everything they can to make people think CoD is an Xbox franchise.."

And you are the only person who truly believes this insane idea. No Dragon, just because MS featured CoD at their conference doesn't automatically make it appear it's only for Xbox. They never said it, the guys at Activision never said it, NO ONE SAID IT!

Again, with CoD is the number one shooter for PS3 and there are how many sequels deep? Who would think that MS is trying to brand CoD as their own? Your logic is so ...stupid... I'm really trying to be civil but reading your excuses is laugh out loud hilarious.

"And once again you're trying to change the subject"

Change the subject....was it not YOU who said the 360 is a shooter centric console?

"Most of what they target are shooters. Just because they don't OWN the games doesn't mean they don't promote having more of them."

PS3 has MORE shooters than 360. They have more exclusive shooters than the 360. They have the multiplat shooters and their own exclusive shooters which are more than the 360. So what's their target if they have more shooters than the 360? And I have seen Sony promote all of their exclusive shooter which are more then the 360.

So how is that a subject change? You brought the subject up and now I'm changing it? More ducking and dodging. I keep forgetting how good you are at that. Very impressive.

"You are justifying anti-gamer, anti-consumer, pro-corporate tactics; ignoring the precedents that Microsoft is trying to set so the Future will have footholds for even worse policies"

More and more speculation on what you THINK might happen in the future. Please kindly remove the stick up your a$$ and take off the tin foil hat. Nobody is justifying any of that because NONE OF THAT IS THERE.

"Why don't you ask anybody in the U.S. (or yourself if you're a U.S. citizen)"

Wait...what?? Are you serious....So are we talking about playing games or are we talking about something completely different now? Are we changing the subject to politics? Should I also use the easy Dragon escape portal of:
"I'm just refusing to acknowledge your changing of the subject. "

That was hilarious, in the future the Xbox One will destroy our personal freedoms so says Dragon because people like me wanted to play Deadrising 3 and Project Spark. Wow....just wow.

That's enough, I'm speechless with that last bit of info you threw out there. I'm even more upset gave this stupid blog my time.

Meep1680d ago

Preach it. Some people will make a decision and go to the grave with it. No information will change perspective. Also how now its a cool thing to hate on Microsoft. I find it ridiculous how people are already making decisions about the Xbox One before its even out. It was going to have some features and they rolled back on them. So god damn what? They rolled back on them because of the backlash of people. That's a good thing. Microsoft, just like Sony want our money, and I will give them money as long as I get good games.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1680d ago
+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1680d ago
Show all comments (59)
The story is too old to be commented.