If that's all you get from 360 fanboys, why do you continue to argue the point? Clearly you think its stupid to pay for Live, so I'm assuming you don't use it.
Why do you care about the 360 users who do use it?
Maybe the majority of users are people that like playing video games. People that couldn't care less about the 'console war'.
People who enjoy gameplay more than graphics.
People who think complaining about $4 per month is moronic. If you can't afford the $4 per month, then you probably shouldn't even be buying games.
If you can afford it, but think its wrong, don't pay it. Quite simple really.
because??
@below: That's exactly what he's thinking. Fanboys would be so butthurt if they knew just how much Sony and MS actually collaborate on things outside of gaming consoles.
Sweet! Cheaper games for people that enjoy gaming for what it is.
Both companies need to work to lower the price for most games. AAA titles can be charged at $60, I'm fine with that. But that's only a handful of titles each year. The rest, although many are fun to play should be lowered to $40. You can't tell me the same amount of time and money goes into making a game like Transformers as say, Uncharted? Alan Wake? GTA, etc.
I never said this was "good for me" before PSN nobody cared enough to complain about paying for live.
My point is Sony and MS make money to please shareholders. That's their first priority. If Sony thought they could compete with Live at the same price, they would have. They just knew people who own both consoles wouldn't really want to pay for two online services. So by making it free, they have a better chance of making more money on software sales from ...
PSN only had free online play because LIVE came ouyt first. The free online was a way to compete with MS.
Any business is all about making as much money as possible for the share holders. MS has no reason to change it now because the majority of people who complain are PS3 users that wouldn't want an xbox. If Live was free they would find another reason to hate.
MS will likely offer a similar service to PSN vs PSN Plus when the next gen console comes ...
Most things reported on here are being hated on BEFORE release.
Move has no casual games? Why don't you give them time to make some?
Move = Motion controls that will be able to be used with hardcore games, as well as casual.
Wii = Already cornered the casual market so they have nothing else to worry about this gen.
Kinect = Has potential, if they can eventually make it work and with good games, then it might be worth a buy.
If there was, the Wii has an install base big enough to hold on to that title at least until next gen starts.
These 'articles' are nothing but fanboy flamebait.
Simple truth for any 'gamer' is, if you want to play ALL the best games, then you need all 3 consoles.
Wow, I hope you're being sarcastic. If you have to play every game standing its a fail.
The Wii HD is what people have been asking for! So now you have a 'Wii HD' that's also a PS3, BluRay player with free online gaming, and 3D movie support. Throw on top of that we're in the season of price cuts with new sku's hitting shelves.
Yeah, Sony really dropped the ball here huh?
Nintendo is becoming the Apple of gaming. They're a little behind in terms of the power their consoles have, but innovation is making them filthy rich again.
I'm not saying MS and Sony don't innovate, but what they need to do is keep some major surprises for this type of event.
I feel like MS and Sony showed pretty much everything before E3 therefor the hype kinda dies down.
Apple and Ninty to join up and make the next gen k...
Its activated when you say "xbox" followed by the command you need.
I saw a unviersal remote control at best buy last week that costs $199.
I love to hate this website. So many childish comments on here its unreal.
People will buy Kinect, and I'm sure most of them will be casuals and guess what? They will enjoy it for what it is. Something most morons on here can't seem to understand. Playing games for what they are!
now we're measuring the size of the stages.
fanboyism hits a new low today.
As humans, we need to realize what these are. Only games.
And the difference is almost nothing. The only people who would notice these differences are the people that care too much. Those people aren't gamers. A 'gamer' would be too busy enoying the game to be worried about something that 'looks a little blurrier' on a different console.
They can't refuse to let anyone use the format. They just have to pay the royalties.
The only people blind to that are the fanboys who actually think Sony and MS hate each other as much as the fanboys hate each other.
PS3 and Xbox are only 'divisions' of Sony and Microsoft. I'm sure both companies have tons of contracts with each other for all sorts of things.
Anyone who think MS would be to bitter to pay Sony for using bluray is just a blind ignorant fanboy. Simple as that.
Don't you guys have any sport...
Its a 'pre E3' exhibit that they're refusing to let Camera's in.
Makes sense. Why let camera's in to record what you're planning to show the world at E3?
Still have my doubts about Natal, but I think this story is just looking for hits, and the title is misleading.
Microsoft currently has no big investment in mobile gaming. As much as this is only a rumor, and probably not true, I just want to point out that they're not competing in this market.