PDA

View Full Version : Xbox 360 is id Software's Primary Target Platform? Maybe.



mor911
01-31-2006, 07:39 PM
I thought this was interesting... Mostly because they've all but jumped ship without really waiting on the PS3. I'm sure things change once the PS3 actually launches. The guy makes some good points though.
We’re doing simultaneous development on Xbox 360 and PC, and we intend to release on PlayStation 3 simultaneously as well, but it’s not a mature enough platform right now for us to be doing much work on.
The difference between theoretical performance and real-world performance on the CPU level is growing fast. On, say, a regular Xbox, you can get very large fractions of theoretical performance with not a whole lot of effort. The PlayStation 2 was always a mess with the multiple processors on there, but the new generations, with Cell or the Xbox 360, make it much, much worse. They can quote these incredibly high numbers of giga-flops or tera-flops or whatever, but in reality, when you do a straightforward development process on them, they’re significantly slower than a modern high-end PC.
...The graphics systems are much better than that, though. Graphics have an inherent natural parallelism. The capabilities of the Xbox 360 and PS3 are really good on the graphics side — although, not head or shoulders above any PC stuff that you can buy at a higher price-point.
The Xbox 360 will probably will be id's primary development platform. As it is right now, we would get the game up on the 360. When I would do major hack-and-slash architectural changes it was back on the PC, but it’s looking like the Xbox 360 will be our target. http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2164&Itemid=2

I'll be buying the magazine to read the full interview, good stuff.


EDIT -- I also thought this was funny because I (nor any gamer I know) consider id soft to be a "big-name" developer. I would care less if id was (or was not) making games for my system. Granted, the more games, the better.

0000001
01-31-2006, 07:47 PM
I think the ps3 will end up blowing out the 360 by next year. time to invest in sony.

mor911
01-31-2006, 07:50 PM
I think the ps3 will end up blowing out the 360 by next year. time to invest in sony. I don't think either of them are gonna blow anyone away. I think it'll be a much closer race than PS2 vs Xbox was. From what I'm gathering, I don't think Sony has a strong enough launch lineup to just jump right into first place... All of their heavy hitters are a year or more out. Microsoft is in a position where second gen 360 games will be launching at Sony's initial launch... In the end, Sony's launch games and the system's price will determine it... In my opinion of course. :D

Marino2Clayton
01-31-2006, 08:04 PM
Another thing that worries me about the PS3 is its price point. As of now it looks as though its going to cost considerably more than the 360.

Disclaimer: Take everything I say with a grain of salt because I am in love with my 360.

Motion
02-01-2006, 04:48 PM
Another thing that worries me about the PS3 is its price point. As of now it looks as though its going to cost considerably more than the 360.

Disclaimer: Take everything I say with a grain of salt because I am in love with my 360.

Based on??????

AquaInferno
02-01-2006, 05:58 PM
I thought this was interesting... Mostly because they've all but jumped ship without really waiting on the PS3. I'm sure things change once the PS3 actually launches. The guy makes some good points though. http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2164&Itemid=2

I'll be buying the magazine to read the full interview, good stuff.


EDIT -- I also thought this was funny because I (nor any gamer I know) consider id soft to be a "big-name" developer. I would care less if id was (or was not) making games for my system. Granted, the more games, the better.
Id's been M$ friendly, Doom 3 wasn't even considered for PS2 and we sure coulda used a damn good FPS on PS2. FYI Mor, I consider ID a major developer, for the PC. They make the best FPS games on PC, console that's a different story, only thanks to Halo. ID started the FPS ****, and I think they will be the company to take down Halo, if they come out with a console only game. (Hopefully a PS3 only title to put Sony on the map for FPS) I've loved ID since Wolfenstien 3D.

mor911
02-01-2006, 06:07 PM
Id's been M$ friendly, Doom 3 wasn't even considered for PS2 and we sure coulda used a damn good FPS on PS2. FYI Mor, I consider ID a major developer, for the PC. They make the best FPS games on PC, console that's a different story, only thanks to Halo. ID started the FPS ****, and I think they will be the company to take down Halo, if they come out with a console only game. (Hopefully a PS3 only title to put Sony on the map for FPS) I've loved ID since Wolfenstien 3D.
I think the reason for them not going to PS2 for Doom3 was mostly processing powert reasons. Same reason for Halflife2. Both of those games run like crap on Xbox IMO. It would have been just pathetic to try and port them to the PS2.

I think ID makes ground breaking FPS games, but they don't get all of the elements to make a Halo or Halflife killer. IDs FPS games tend to be too much run-n-gun and go-find-a-jkey-to-open-the-door gameplay to match up with a game like Halo2 with a strong story line.

Agua
02-01-2006, 06:32 PM
As with my complaint regarding consolves vs. PC - This damned X-box is ruining games. MS has never made a profit on X-Box but is determined to put all other platforms out of business.

mor911
02-01-2006, 07:42 PM
As with my complaint regarding consolves vs. PC - This damned X-box is ruining games. MS has never made a profit on X-Box but is determined to put all other platforms out of business. While I don't know the numbers behind Microsoft's sales for the Xbox console, I serious doubt they've lost money with the Xbox. It's ridiculous to think they've never made a profit. Even if they took a loss on the console, software and services (XBL) would have made up for that easy.

I would also like you to go ino more depth on how the "damned X-box is ruining games." That's probably one of the most ignorant things someone could say. Even if you were the most die hard sony or Nintendo fan, competition is always good. Do you think Killzone or Socom would even have been thought of if Halo wasn't so successful? If Xbox Live never got popular, do you think you'd be able to play Madden and every other online PS2 game (with a headset)?

Saying Xbox is ruining gaming is just as dumb as saying the PS2 or the Gamecube is ruining gaming.

Agua
02-01-2006, 09:47 PM
While I don't know the numbers behind Microsoft's sales for the Xbox console, I serious doubt they've lost money with the Xbox. It's ridiculous to think they've never made a profit. Even if they took a loss on the console, software and services (XBL) would have made up for that easy.

I would also like you to go ino more depth on how the "damned X-box is ruining games." That's probably one of the most ignorant things someone could say. Even if you were the most die hard sony or Nintendo fan, competition is always good. Do you think Killzone or Socom would even have been thought of if Halo wasn't so successful? If Xbox Live never got popular, do you think you'd be able to play Madden and every other online PS2 game (with a headset)?

Saying Xbox is ruining gaming is just as dumb as saying the PS2 or the Gamecube is ruining gaming.

Well, I suppose National Public Radio business reporters were lying with regard to MS's profits on pre-360 x-boxes.

I've already spoken on the "dumbing down" of PC games due to limited controls of consoles and the diminishing availability of titles in a previous thread of last week or the week immediately preceding that one. I don't see how anyone could argue with that, and I don't need to call you "ignorant" to do so, as you have done.

mor911
02-01-2006, 10:01 PM
Well, I suppose National Public Radio business reporters were lying with regard to MS's profits on pre-360 x-boxes.

I've already spoken on the "dumbing down" of PC games due to limited controls of consoles and the diminishing availability of titles in a previous thread of last week or the week immediately preceding that one. I don't see how anyone could argue with that, and I don't need to call you "ignorant" to do so, as you have done. I'm not calling you a liar. I'm just saying, no board of any business (including Microsoft) would vote to fund and launch a project like the 360 if the previous attempt (5 years of Xbox) lost them money. Doen't make sense.

You didn't say PC games were being "dumbed down" because of limited console controls. You said:


This damned X-box is ruining games.
You're blaming the slow falling of PC games on Microsoft? It makes no sense. That's all I'm saying.

Agua
02-01-2006, 10:04 PM
The Xbox division has never made a profit, but Microsoft hopes the sleek, silver Xbox 360 will become the must-have gadget for this year's holiday season.


http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,17338589%255E1702,00.html
I haven't got time to hunt up a bunch of junk. This is the first one that popped up on Google. And, yes, they would take a short term loss in the idea of running everything else out of business in the long term.

*edited to include the following at 9:10 p.m. EST*

Sorry, no link, but just saw a report that placed the wholesale material price list for assembling an X-Box 360 at $530+. What are they selling for now? Around 400 & under? To be sure, they make $ on the licensing, but it selling below cost for the purpose of eliminating competition and tie-ins is called "predatory pricing", which is a term of art.

*edited a 2nd time at 9:17 p.m.*


You didn't say PC games were being "dumbed down" because of limited console controls. You said:

You're blaming the slow falling of PC games on Microsoft? It makes no sense. That's all I'm saying.

Ok, I'll try to explain more clearly in this thread, though I discussed it briefly in the thread I alluded to earlier from a week or so ago. MS is underwriting gaming companies' coding for x-box. What is happening is that games are, consequently, cheaper to develop for x-box. Companies are designing the games for x-box, with the limited controls, which limitation is not a concern with PC games. Fewer and fewer titles are available for PC gaming, and frequently, the games initially designed for x-box, are simply a "port", with the control limitations present in the x-box version carrying over to the PC.

Does that make sense now?

*edited a 3rd time at 9:24 p.m.*

So The Mor, try not to call something "ignorant" when you don't understand the reasoning behind it.

mor911
02-01-2006, 10:47 PM
It is ignorant. Because Microsoft was smart enough to make it easy to develope games for their system, and developers (who can choose to develope for whom or whatever they want) decide to make 360 games and port to the PC, you're upset with Microsoft. They're just delivering a developer-friendly console... It's called smart business.

Agua
02-01-2006, 10:59 PM
Okay, you're 25 years old and know it all, so ignoring my point-for-point response to your comments, which were met head on, and changing your argument in the middle of discussion doesn't surprise me.

mor911
02-01-2006, 11:04 PM
Okay, you're 25 years old and know it all, so ignoring my point-for-point response to your comments, which were met head on, and changing your argument in the middle of discussion doesn't surprise me.
You made a point that they sell the hardware undercosts and made money with licensing fees... That's normal practice now. Sony did it with the PS2 and will do it for the PS3. They have to. Big deal. I understand that.

What I don't understand is how you can ignorantly (oh god, there's that word again... Old man might break a hip) blame a company for making smart business moves and say they're ruining games. That is ridiculous.

Buddwalk
02-01-2006, 11:12 PM
Okay, you're 25 years old and know it all, so ignoring my point-for-point response to your comments, which were met head on, and changing your argument in the middle of discussion doesn't surprise me.

Your 42 and your playing a childish game by pointing out his age...real mature man lol

Its a video game, its not like its real life or anything :rolleyes2

Agua
02-01-2006, 11:22 PM
You made a point that they sell the hardware undercosts and made money with licensing fees... That's normal practice now. Sony did it with the PS2 and will do it for the PS3. They have to. Big deal. I understand that.

What I don't understand is how you can ignorantly (oh god, there's that word again... Old man might break a hip) blame a company for making smart business moves and say they're ruining games. That is ridiculous.

:lol: Well, you took that with a good nature, so I'll give you that much.

Okay, one more time - quality of games is lessened by: 1) dumbing down of controls for PC games; 2) far-reaching harm to competition by eating losses with the goal of making it unprofitable by attrition of competitiors. You yourself stated in a previous post within this thread that "competition is good" [I paraphrased, but wasn't that the gist?]. So, if they eliminate competition, how is that good? FAIR competition is good, predatory pricing is illegal, and it is so for a reason - it isn't good.

Marino2Clayton
02-02-2006, 01:05 AM
Based on??????

Here ya go...


January 27, 2006 - Those lucky enough to have gotten their hands on an Xbox 360 will tell you that after the hardware, games, and other miscellaneous peripherals, controllers, etc., buying a next-gen system 'aint cheap. But as much as a 360 may have hurt your pockets, it's looking like a PS3 will even more so. In fact, it's feasible to assume that the PlayStation 3 could retail at anywhere between $300-$800 at launch.

http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2006/02/whatiftheps3cost100020060127051208154-1.jpg

Though the system's final price tag is still completely unknown at this point but Sony president Ken Kutaragi has stated that the PS3 "Will be expensive". He has also said the company wants "for consumers to think to themselves 'I will work more hours to buy one'. We want people to feel that they want it, irrespective of anything else."

One thing however is widely known; the PS3 won't match the 360's $399 price tag, and here's why:

It's cost will ultimately be determined by two things. One is the PS3's unique Cell processor that was co-designed by IBM, Toshiba and Sony. The second is the systems Blu-ray drive. Now, certain analysts in the industry believe the latter will drive costs up hundreds of dollars on its own, and there's no reason to believe that to be untrue. Pioneer, one of Sony's Blu-ray partners, has marked the MSRP of their top-of-the-line BDP-HD1 Blu-ray player at $1,800. Other companies like Samsung have priced their comparable, but ultimately lower-end model, players at $1,199 retail. So, by the time Blu-ray players are available for consumer purchase, which should be around the same time the PS3 is expected to launch in Japan, they'll be going for an average of over a grand.

Yeah, I want a PS3, sure; but I'm not putting in extra hours at the office just to buy one.

With that said; here's a worst case scenario: What if with all games, peripherals, and the add-on hard drive included - it will cost you over $1000 to get a PS3 at launch? Will you buy it? Do you think this is just way too much to pay for a gaming system, even though it's fitted with the highest-end DVD player on the market? Are you willing to shell out this much cash for what's likely to be comparable to the Xbox 360 (according to some developers), as a gaming system? Or is the Revolution looking sweeter and sweeter now with its sub $300 price tag?

mor911
02-02-2006, 01:30 AM
I'm glad you started this, cause I learned some goos stuff tonight.

Predatory Pricing - An anti-competitive measure employed by a dominant company to protect market share from new or existing competitors. Predatory pricing involves temporarily pricing a product low enough to end a competitive threat.

This is only one of hundreds of definitions of Predatory Pricing that all go against what you're preaching.

1. Microsoft does not lead ANY market in the gaming industry (maybe online games -- but with MMOs, I'm sure the PC has that too)

2. This cannot eliminate competetive threat because console creators have been doing this for every launch since the PS1.

3. There is a difference between Predatory Pricing and risk. Microsoft is taking a risk that selling their console at a loss will put the system in homes and they'll make their money back with software. If they sold the 360 at $20 I may have agreed with you.

Motion
02-02-2006, 07:53 AM
Here ya go...

Good read, thanks for the link. Interesting how they are starting to change their tune as the launch gets closer. Early on they said it would very likely be around $399. Oh well, ya get what you pay for, I'm still getting one. No way they could realistically expect to sell well if they make them too expensive. We'll find out soon enough.

Agua
02-02-2006, 09:24 AM
I'm glad you started this, cause I learned some goos stuff tonight.

Predatory Pricing - An anti-competitive measure employed by a dominant company to protect market share from new or existing competitors. Predatory pricing involves temporarily pricing a product low enough to end a competitive threat.

This is only one of hundreds of definitions of Predatory Pricing that all go against what you're preaching.

1. Microsoft does not lead ANY market in the gaming industry (maybe online games -- but with MMOs, I'm sure the PC has that too)

2. This cannot eliminate competetive threat because console creators have been doing this for every launch since the PS1.

3. There is a difference between Predatory Pricing and risk. Microsoft is taking a risk that selling their console at a loss will put the system in homes and they'll make their money back with software. If they sold the 360 at $20 I may have agreed with you.

Mor, look, while I give you credit for your tenancity, I've been practicing law for 13 years now, and AmJured Anti-trust. Predatory pricing does not have to be limited to a leader in a particular segment of a market. Wal-mart did this crap for many years. No one could argue that Wal-Mart is a dominant leader in particular items such as copy paper, pens, hunting-arms ... They simply take losses for the purpose of harming competition and driving local competition out of business. And I've already explained to you why this is bad, and for the very reason that you exclaimed was a good principle, e.g. "competition".

I don't know how much plainer I can make it to you.

mor911
02-02-2006, 09:34 AM
Mor, look, while I give you credit for your tenancity, I've been practicing law for 13 years now, and AmJured Anti-trust. Predatory pricing does not have to be limited to a leader in a particular segment of a market. Wal-mart did this crap for many years. No one could argue that Wal-Mart is a dominant leader in particular items such as copy paper, pens, hunting-arms ... They simply take losses for the purpose of harming competition and driving local competition out of business. And I've already explained to you why this is bad, and for the very reason that you exclaimed was a good principle, e.g. "competition".

I don't know how much plainer I can make it to you. Ok, let's try and look at this reasonably:

Situation 1
Microsoft sells the 360 for a profit... They'd have to sell it at what? $530 to break even? $550-$600 to make something? They are second in the market. Sony launches their machine at a loss for $500. Maybe $400 (Why wouldn't they? They've been doing it for every system launch).

Winner: Sony -- They own the market right now, and a move like this woul bury Microsoft and the 360.

Situation 2
Microsoft sells the 360 the way they did, the sell the hardware at a loss. Sony knows it's a pricing game. This FORCES Sony to sell the PS3 at a lower price. The PS3 launch also may push Microsoft to lower the 360 price even more.

Winner: Consumer -- Lower prices give us more options. It also forces them to spend more time making sure quality software sells their system.

This isn't anything like the Walmart case. Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft aren't small mom & pops shops that can be pushed out of business because another company is selling toilet paper for 50 cents less. We're talking about huge deals. This is not illegal. It's stiff competition, and I love it. I can't wait till the PS3 comes out, I'll get one of those too. :evil:

Agua
02-02-2006, 10:04 AM
Dude, eventually, if the practice keeps up, at least some producers will have to throw in the towel. There doesn't have to be total elimination for predatory pricing to be effective. People can't keep selling stuff at a loss indefinitely just as a test of will.

mor911
02-02-2006, 10:28 AM
Dude, eventually, if the practice keeps up, at least some producers will have to throw in the towel. There doesn't have to be total elimination for predatory pricing to be effective. People can't keep selling stuff at a loss indefinitely just as a test of will.
I totally understand where you're coming from. What I don't understand is how you can throw sole blame on Microsoft for this. I know Microsoft does some dumb stuff and is trying to be in everything, but they are no more guilty of any of this than Sony or Nintendo.

3P
02-02-2006, 11:10 AM
Microsoft see the Xbox as the perfect entry into the "total entertainment" package. They want control of your gaming console, tv, dvd watching... the whole deal. There's long term money in it for them, so they are leveraging their price gouging techniques in the PC industry to branch out, and I'm sure they'll eventually bring those price gouging techniques to the other markets. Remember, what might be "good business" for Microsoft is not really good for the consumer. Their number one goal is to part you the consumer from as much of your money as possible.

Here's an interesting study in what may be in store for the console gaming industry:

http://searchopensource.techtarget.com/columnItem/0,294698,sid39_gci1156919,00.html

mor911
02-02-2006, 11:27 AM
Microsoft see the Xbox as the perfect entry into the "total entertainment" package. They want control of your gaming console, tv, dvd watching... the whole deal. There's long term money in it for them, so they are leveraging their price gouging techniques in the PC industry to branch out, and I'm sure they'll eventually bring those price gouging techniques to the other markets. Remember, what might be "good business" for Microsoft is not really good for the consumer. Their number one goal is to part you the consumer from as much of your money as possible.

Here's an interesting study in what may be in store for the console gaming industry:

http://searchopensource.techtarget.com/columnItem/0,294698,sid39_gci1156919,00.html
Awesome read. I know what you guys are saying. And even though nobody knows it, I'm no huge fan of Microsoft either. I simply (strongly) disagreed with him saying they are ruining gaming.

As for the whole entertainment package, I thing that's they way all of the consoles are going these days. Microsoft does have a little leverag in this area being that they make the operating system that's on 90% of the planet's PCs.

Phinz420
02-02-2006, 02:04 PM
There will be a key audience for developers of next gen games to target. Currently on the PC there are litteraly millions of players who pay a monthly fee along with box retail to play MMORPGs(Massive Multiplayer Online RPG). Blizzard really took off with World of Warcraft, they claim to have around 5 million players.

Sony Online Entertainment has a massive audience as well, touting games like Everquest, EQII, Matrix Online, Planetside, and Star Wars Galaxies. The two biggest player bases of those are WOW and EQ, and both of those games lack in terms of graphical awe and design. Now, grant it that EQ is 7 years old, has changed its engine twice, and should deserve credit for even being competetive with current 3d games. WOW has its own flavor to graphics, and I give Blizzard major credit for creating a engine that doesnt tax PC systems too hard but has the refreshing old shcool warcraft look, with room for improvment as EQ did in its life span.

The key will be if developers are given enough time and resources to put out a good MMO. Bringing these kind of games to consoles has been ugly to say the least(except for FFXI in Japan). MMO's need a strong machine to power it considering that these types of games have fights where 50+ players are battling against many computer controlled oponents. The PS2 and Xbox did not have what was required for this.

It will be a genre to look out for in the coming years, i gurantee it.

Motion
02-02-2006, 02:09 PM
There will be a key audience for developers of next gen games to target. Currently on the PC there are litteraly millions of players who pay a monthly fee along with box retail to play MMORPGs(Massive Multiplayer Online RPG). Blizzard really took off with World of Warcraft, they claim to have around 5 million players.

Sony Online Entertainment has a massive audience as well, touting games like Everquest, EQII, Matrix Online, Planetside, and Star Wars Galaxies. The two biggest player bases of those are WOW and EQ, and both of those games lack in terms of graphical awe and design. Now, grant it that EQ is 7 years old, has changed its engine twice, and should deserve credit for even being competetive with current 3d games. WOW has its own flavor to graphics, and I give Blizzard major credit for creating a engine that doesnt tax PC systems too hard but has the refreshing old shcool warcraft look, with room for improvment as EQ did in its life span.

The key will be if developers are given enough time and resources to put out a good MMO. Bringing these kind of games to consoles has been ugly to say the least(except for FFXI in Japan). MMO's need a strong machine to power it considering that these types of games have fights where 50+ players are battling against many computer controlled oponents. The PS2 and Xbox did not have what was required for this.

It will be a genre to look out for in the coming years, i gurantee it.

How can you mention Sony Online and not mention their #1 game????? Socom! :D

mor911
02-02-2006, 02:17 PM
How can you mention Sony Online and not mention their #1 game????? Socom! :D
I think he's talking about Sony's lineup of MMOs :lol:

Phinz420
02-02-2006, 02:29 PM
How can you mention Sony Online and not mention their #1 game????? Socom! :D
SOE(Sony Online Entertainment) doesnt handle Socom- SCEA(Sony Computer Entertainment of America) does, but yes that is a great franchise for the ps2. I stopped playin Socom 3 a little bit ago, but I was an Admiral before I left :cooldude:. I think there is a bright future for Zipper Interactive(creators of Socom) especially after being purchased by SCEA recently. Socom 4 on the PS3 anyone? :goof:

AquaInferno
02-02-2006, 03:43 PM
From a tech head standpoint (not a lawyer standpoint) the reason M$ and even Sony will take loss on there consoles in the early stages is because most of their profit is from games and accessories. Eventually the cost to make a PS3 and 360 will cost Sony and M$ less respectivley. Then we usually see console price drops, technology always gets cheaper, who paid 2 g's for their computer in the late 90's, and paid under a grand for one (which is substantially better) in 2006. Enough said right there.

Why everyone in this thread is arguing is beyond me, this started off as an ID topic and now feels more like a lawsuit thread :shakeno:

mor911
02-02-2006, 03:45 PM
I didn't mean to argue, and if I offended you Agua by calling the statement ignorant I apologize.

I just didn't agree that Microsoft is ruining games. That is a ridiculous claim imho. I love the 360, and I'll love my PS3. I don't choose sides. I just thought the comment was ridiculous.

It's all peace and love up in here.

AquaInferno
02-02-2006, 03:47 PM
I didn't mean to argue, and if I offended you Agua by calling the statement ignorant I apologize.

I just didn't agree that Microsoft is ruining games. That is a ridiculous claim imho. I love the 360, and I'll love my PS3. I don't choose sides. I just thought the comment was ridiculous.

It's all peace and love up in here.

The only arguing I partake in is MGS vs SC. Because well... I won't even get started with that actually

mor911
02-02-2006, 04:08 PM
The only arguing I partake in is MGS vs SC. Because well... I won't even get started with that actually
Yeah you and JP go head to head with that all the time :sidelol:

SirDrums
02-02-2006, 04:46 PM
It has been interesting reading this thread.

It amazing how gaming has gone from a couple of guys coding in thier basment on the weekends to huge companies spending 4+ years and millions of dollars in devopment. Simply amazing.

Though I agree with some of what eveyone said I happen to think that For every Goliath out there, there is a david looking for the right moment to strike. Who knows what 'small' companies out their are coming up with to challange Sony and M$. Don't think its possible? Look who was the leader in the console industry 20 year ago. Nintendo was untouchable. Unstopable. they looked like they would gooble up the entire gaming industry. Look at them now, sitting at a lonely #3 spot.

Let M$ and sony beat the crap out of each other. They may both find them selves playing 3rd fiddle one day. Until then we all enjoy the "low" prices.

Agua
02-03-2006, 02:26 PM
I didn't mean to argue, and if I offended you Agua by calling the statement ignorant I apologize.

I just didn't agree that Microsoft is ruining games. That is a ridiculous claim imho. I love the 360, and I'll love my PS3. I don't choose sides. I just thought the comment was ridiculous.

It's all peace and love up in here.

Just checked back in this thread. We're straight man.