Bill Gates is Evil Comments

Page 1 of 18

  • Halo 4 review

  • Bill Gates is Evil 01/11/2012

    http://www.polygon.com/game/halo-4/2204 Reply -16
  • PS3, 360 worldwide sales now 2 million apart

  • Bill Gates is Evil 02/11/2011

    If you look at the PS3 vs. Xbox 360 sales out of context, then sure, Sony is 'catching up'. This does not mean Sony is doing well.

    The original Xbox sold 24 million. The PS2 sold 150 million-- the PS2, in fact, is the best selling console of all time. If Microsoft easily doubles their sales from their previous console, and Sony's struggled to sell 1/3rd of theirs, then you've got a proper context for comparison.

    The fact that 6 years into this generation and we're still speaking of 'catching up' with regards to Sony, is evidence they're losing. Sony is going to be entering the next generation without resources, without momentum, with nothing but decline-- and they're going to be doing it against a company that profits that could finance an invasion of a medium-sized country if they wanted to.

    Bits of information:

    --Microsoft is going to make more profit TODAY, than Sony has in the last 4 years combined.

    --Microsoft is sitting on enough cash to purchase Sony 4 times. This includes only cash, and not their less liquid assets.

    --Microsoft nearly makes enough in profit to purchase Sony once a year, if it were possible.

    So how is a struggling-to-profit, declining console maker going to finance a competing console to Microsoft in 2013 and not continue to lose market share, momentum, and money? Do they plan on charging $800 for the PS4, just to stay afloat?
    Reply 0
  • November US sales: Sony's spin

  • Bill Gates is Evil 11/12/2010

    "The 360 has some good games but it doesn't have the wide selection of games the PS3 has."



    360 has a much wider, and higher quality selection than the PS3. This is very obvious, if you own both consoles.
    Reply +1
  • Bill Gates is Evil 10/12/2010

    Microsoft is intentionally relying less and less on exclusives. It's their strategy-- it's not like Microsoft doesn't have the resources to secure endless amounts of sequels and buyout pretty much every developer in industry. They do, it's just not a cost effective way of pummeling Sony.



    Exclusives cannabalize console sales: it sucks the sales out of third party multi-platform games. By weaning themselves off of console exclusives, they're forcing gamers to pay attention to third party offerings. The result of this, obviously, is that multiplatform games on the Xbox 360 sell better, get more developer love and resources, and as a result of this usually end up being the better version. The Xbox 360 version of a game isn't always better than the PS3 version, but the majority of the time it is. It just makes sense if you're a third party developer to focus more resources and effort on the Xbox 360 version: Microsoft wants to facilitate an environment in which 3rd parties can succeed, not one in which they're pushed to the side by a billion dollar Microsoft Game Studios uber-title.



    The problem is even worse for Nintendo than it is for Sony, as Nintendo has relied extremely heavily on their in-house development efforts to support their consoles. The result of this, naturally, is a blight of a console for third party developers.



    There will always be Microsoft-exclusive games, Sony-exclusives, etc. It's simply the degree to which those games dominate the release schedule-- Microsoft has been making a concerted effort to limit it's competition ot third party developers.



    This competition-friendly strategy of Microsoft's secures the longevity of their position as 3rd party platform of choice. That's a huge deal for the Xbox 360's sales, even if it's more subtle than a Halo or a GTA or whatever. Microsoft has older, cheaper, less advanced technology: but it continually beats the PS3 in multiplatform quality. That, my firiends, is an excellent business strategy: Microsoft wants to focus more and more on facilitating a competitive 3rd party battlefield on it's own console than it is boosting console sales via one-time big name exclusives. It's a long term strategy.
    Reply +1
  • MS/Sony to join forces within 10 years?

  • Bill Gates is Evil 18/11/2010

    If you're referring to the Wii, I should remind you that's not a new console. It's a repackaged GameCube, specificially designed as Nintendo's Blue Ocean strategy: to avoid competition by creating you're own market. Nintendo wasn't, prior to the Wii, financially capable of continuing to compete directly with Sony and Microsoft so they created their own tidy little market: the casual/retard market. They're not in competition with Sony and Microsoft: this is intentional and they'll fully admit it themselves. The Wii marked Nintendo's departure from the console industry as we knew it: there are 2 competitors left.



    The next manufacturer to not release another console will be Sony, as I've been saying since 2001. They can't compete long-term against filthy-rich Microsoft in an industry with a natural inclination to monopoly-- costs are only going to get higher, and Sony's profit margins will continue to get squeezed because of competition. They may release some alternative gimmick console like Nintendo did, or some spin off. But ULTIMATELY, Microsoft will be the sole standard for living room based, non-retard gaming.
    Reply -5
  • Bill Gates is Evil 18/11/2010

    A single standard is actually good for competition, but you're all way to stupid to understand why. Reply -10
  • Will Carmine live or die? You decide

  • Bill Gates is Evil 22/07/2010

    I'm sorry, but I love this idea. It's hilarious. I've witnessed the first two Carmines die, and am actually hoping the 3rd makes it through. Save Carmine! Reply 0
  • "Closed" Xbox Live blocked FFXIV

  • Bill Gates is Evil 24/06/2010

    The most confusing part about all this, is how the hell is the Final Fantasy XI workable on Xbox Live but Final Fantasy XIV is not.



    Microsoft has been fucking up a lot lately.
    Reply +10
  • Bungie confirms Firefight for Reach

  • Bill Gates is Evil 16/06/2010

    TOOTR: ..."and the Generator test was not the most fluid"



    That was intentional-- they were testing the strength of the network by simulating massive amounts of strain. It shouldn't be a problem in the final version. (not sure about firefight though)
    Reply 0
  • Crackdown 2

  • Bill Gates is Evil 26/05/2010

    Agreed frost. I'm sick of dystopias in videogames. Reply +5
  • Most PS3s bought second-hand - report

  • Bill Gates is Evil 26/04/2010

    It's impossible for second-hand sales to be greater than the number of people who paid full price.



    This poll is shit.
    Reply -2
  • Worldwide Xbox 360 sales hit 40m

  • Bill Gates is Evil 24/04/2010

    "Also concede that 7-8 million more than PS3 with a years headstart and almost a 100 differential is also not that impressive?"



    The first Playstation came out in 1994. The first Xbox came out in 2001.



    Playstation 2 sold 140 million. The Xbox sold 24 million.



    Sony has had a 7 year headstart in this industry. Microsoft's second console is in competition against Sony's third. The Xbox 360 is going to easily double the sales of it's previous iteration. The Playstation 3 will be lucky to reach half of it's previous iteration's sales.



    Even if Microsoft had sold 8 million FEWER consoles than Sony so far, they'd be doing massively well right now with the 360. You have to GAIN market share before you can the majority of it, and gaining market share is precisely what they've been doing since Day 1 with the Xbox. It's only going to get harder for Sony too-- the PS3 will not provide the PS4 with as much momentum as the PS2 provided the PS3. Because up until recently, the PS3 has been a massive piece of shit.



    Sony has been faltering-- Microsoft may a high RROD rate in their consoles, but the PS3 has been one massive metaphorical RROD for Sony.



    Reply +2
  • MS discussing Xbox Live telly channel

  • Bill Gates is Evil 21/04/2010

    Why is it that only europeans talk about Xbox Live's cost like its expensive.



    Oh its because you're a bunch of poor homeless bastards. Seriously if you cant afford Xbox Live, you have the wrong hobby.
    Reply -10
  • Halo: Reach Multiplayer Beta

  • Bill Gates is Evil 21/04/2010

    Oh fucking lord I want this game



    Already asked off work for two days for the beta, to drive 250 miles and stay with a couple of other nerds and play Halo Reach endlessly.



    Making White Russians was on the agenda, which is why I was so pleased to see that mentioned in the article. It's becoming the Official Drink of Halo.
    Reply +1
  • NPD: Pokemon beats FFXIII, BFBC2

  • Bill Gates is Evil 17/04/2010

    There are certainly innovative benefits to hardware competition, many of which would have to be sacrificed (or at least hardware innovations wouldn't hit as quickly as they do now). There are ups and downs to everything-- there is always a loss to every course. Right now we have a competitve structure appparently beneficial to hardware innovations, but which also force developers to ration out their limited resources amongst 3 major different formats.



    But there just like there is a clear upside to competition (innovation being a major one), there are also downsides. For one, competition can actually limit a companies willingness to make very risky decisions-- straying too far from the competitive norm, even if it's the most innovative and brilliant idea in the history of the world, is taking a massive risk. Hardware competition has shown it's ability to foster micro-innovations, but you won't see any truly massive changes precisely because of the amount of risk involved-- kinds of risk that exist solely because there is a competitor. Competition can make companies afraid to make mistakes, and fear is directly in opposition to the entire notion of innovation.



    Nintendo took a risk with the Wii and succeeded-- but they only took that risk out of necessity. They were gradually losing their ability to compete in the traditional gaming market, and so they set out for a blue ocean strategy in which they create their own sub-market in which they alone dominate. It's a brilliant idea looking back-- but I assure you Nintendo was anything but certain they'd succeed, and it's Nintendo's (rightful) fear of failure going into the unknown with the Wii that explains why the console is so underpowered-- the Wii isn't at the cutting edge of graphics technology not because Nintendo thinks graphics aren't important, but because it allowed Nintendo to keep costs low. Their decision to have the Wii underpowered had nothing to do with gaming, but entirely to do with hedging against the risk they were taking with the console. By using existing tech with the Wii (it's essentially a boosted GameCube), they never had to take any losses on the console itself-- so in Nintendo's mind even if the Wii turned out to be a major flop, they won't absorb many losses because they intentionally invested a bare minimum in the engineering of the console.



    In other words, they were scared shitless when they released the Wii. But they got lucky with it, and I promise Nintendo is probably the most surprised out of all of us at the Wii's success.



    But to respond to this...



    "The monopoly comes in the standardisation of format not manufacturer of equipment. This would not be possible if any games manufacturer had a monopoloy, there could be no tesco version of xbox only Microsofts. "



    I completely see your point and agree with the general theme of it, but I don't believe this is what would actually occur-- in fact, I think it's hardware competition itself that's preventing there from being a Wal-Mart or Tesco version of a console. That sounds counterintuitive at first but give me a listen.



    Multiple consoles competiting over the same finite market creates the need for a console to clearly define itself. A console has to standout, be clear and understandable, and carry a somewhat unified 'message'-- they have to do so because they have a competitor. Competition amongst consoles forces the respective companies to be extremely controlling of the console and it's image-- thus they will not hand out control to 3rd party hardware manufacturers because the hardware 'matters'. In a theoretical monopolized gaming industry, the hardware will cease to 'matter' and companies would be more willing to cease strict control over the standard because maintaining a unified message and image is no longer important.



    In fact, Sony in their glory days when it seemed they were ultimately going to monopolize the industry, talked about allowing 3rd party development of the hardware-- they were going to allow basically any qualified company to create their 'own' Playstation, because at that point in time Sony had such a strong grip on the market that the Playstation brand was very nearly the single 'standard' for the industry. I don't quite know what to search on Google to back up this information, but I promise you I'm not making it up-- I think it was prior to the release of the Playstation 2 that Sony discussed their plans to allow other companies to build their own devices using the PS2 gaming standard.



    But then Microsoft came along and upset Sony's ambitions, and also greatly delayed the arrival of a single standard because now the industry has to endure yet ANOTHER major hardware battle that will naturally end in only one victor. Hopefully it'll stop there and the industry will have finally arrived at a single standard-- besides what company left in this world has the resources to invest massive amounts of money to just get it's foot in the door, nevermind overcome Sony/Microsoft's grip on market share? Apple...maybe? Some sort of iGaming console? That's the only possible new competitor I can imagine and that's a bit of a stretch.



    Ultimately the main problem with multiple consoles is it both drains and divides developer resources. Cross-platform gaming is increasingly common, but there are still costs to port and usually one or the other consoles version of a game suffers and/or doesn't fully take advantage of one or both of the consoles. It's extremely inefficient. Remember developers are like anyone else-- they are on a budget. Money wasted overcoming the inefficiencies of multiple development standards is money not being spent on the substance of the game itself.



    The nature of making a single game for two seperate standards implies that it'll use neither standard to it's fullest-- it's why console exclusives always seem like the 'best' games; they allow the developer to focus on a single standard and not waste time and resources on multi-standard red tape. Console exclusives incidentaly are usually named and pointed to as reason #1 people believe multiple console competition is beneficial-- but this is extremely deceptive, because they seem to imply that kind of quality only exists because Sony wants to kill Microsoft etc. etc.



    But in fact, if there were only a single standard every game is an exclusive. Everyone developer is in competition with every other developer (with no console-heavy genre niche competitive loopholes, like the previously mentioned Xbox/FPS, PS3/JRPG example)-- there is no escaping for these developers, no loophool to exploit in a divided market.



    Every dollar of every developers resources will be fully available to every gamer, via a single console. It's far more efficient for the developers as they focus more on the games than the consoles, for the gamers (as they currently have to buy 3 consoles for access to all developers), and for the growth of gaming into an easily-understandable truly mass-market entertainment format. Gaming is NEVER going to get the full respect it deserves until there is a single, global living-room gaming standard.
    Reply 0
  • Bill Gates is Evil 17/04/2010

    Here is where my being smarter than everyone on Earth actually works to my disadvantage. It makes me prone to holding opinions that, while correct, aren't 'popular'.



    One single console is not only 1) a good thing, it 2) is going to happen, because it's a natural monopoly. I'd could sit here all day and explain that it being a natural monopoly is proof that it's a good thing, and that it being a good thing is what leads it to being a natural monopoly. But then I'd have to chop through a mountain of your pre-conceived non-original opinions that will unfortunately run counter to your predictable intuitive response.



    But I'll keep it simple. Console hardware is a means to an ends.



    Hardware is simply there to facilitate software. Just like roads are there to facilitate transportation, language is used to facilitate communication, laws are there to facilitate social cohersion.



    Would having several different kinds of roads, with only certain kinds of cars compatible with certain kinds of roads, help our transporation system?



    Has having humanity been broken up into hundreds of different factions, with differing languages, helped humankind progress or has it hindered it?



    Would a society that has conflicting, competing laws make any sense to you?





    The point I'm getting at, is everyone thinks Sony vs. Microsoft is good for competition. It's fantastic-- for hardware competition. It means us gamers get the amazing benefit of having to buy a new console every 5 years or so, while half of the console cycle is spent with developers releasing shit games because they have to learn a new console.



    But what does splitting developers up do to software competition? It hurts it, obviously. Software is the entire reason we play videogames. We don't buy hardware to gasp at the complexity of the engineering-- we buy it play games. Only, if I want to play all the best games guess what I have to do? I have to buy 3 consoles. How the fuck is that good for gamers?



    It's a natural monopoly, and it's going to happen anyway, for the same reason DVD was the previous movie standard, and Blu-Ray is the high-def. Neither of them had competition for very long and it was GOOD when they monopolized the means to watching movies at home. It meant the consumer could focus on the only product that really mattered: the DVD's themselves, and not DVD players, since they can pop it into anyone of them and they'll work.



    The industry is gravitating towards a monopoly-- the best evidence I can give, is look at how cross-platform the software has become. As costs have increased, hardware has become less differentiated because of simple market forces. Consoles are going to perform more and more like each other-- differences are going to continue to erode because the market is naturally inclined to a single standard. In other words, even if there continue to be multiple hardware standards for a while (Sony probably has at least another console in it's dwindling momentum), developers will try to overcome it via a greater focus on cross-standard software. Multiple consoles is a BURDEN for developers.



    In the long run, the standard bearer is going to be the one who can survive the constantly increasing costs. And it's really that simple. Sony can't in any conceivable way compete directly with Microsoft for an extended period of time-- they simply do not have the resources. That's why the focus on short-term progress and miniature victories is utterly pointless: in the long run, Sony is doomed. They could eventually try to pull a Nintendo and create an entirely different product within the gaming spectrum-- isolating themselves from competition but only attracting a relatively niche aspect of the market.



    Only I can't see where on the gaming spectrum another Wii-like fad product can fit. Nintendo has the casual/borderline-retarded gamer market on lockdown, and I doubt Sony'd be able to crack that market. They certainly can't compete with Microsoft for the more advanced gamer portion of the gaming spectrum. And PC is for the hardcore of the hardcore.



    Regardless, a single console will pit all the developers against each other. That is actually productive competition that create sincere software innovation-- because they *only* differentiating factor left will be quality developers. No more 'buy a 360 if you like FPS, buy a PS3 if you like JRPG' nonsense.



    It'll be: buy this one standard, which every software developer on Earth is devoting their full resources to. THAT's competiton. Not this split-standard phony temporary competitive shit.



    Reply 0
  • Bill Gates is Evil 16/04/2010

    So far the 360 has outsold the PS3 all three months of the year in 2010 in the United States. And if the 360 Slim rumors are true, you can pretty much rule out the later part of 2010 (when it'll be released) and all of 2011 for Sony as well. Perhaps Sony will slip in a monthly victory in the few months left that it has a chance to.



    It's funny to see the internet coated with Sony boylovers acting like Sony is some resurgent underdog, what with the increase in sales and the release of some actually good games.



    Nevermind the fact that in the last generation, Sony's PS2 outsold the Xbox by over 110 million units. That's how far Sony has fallen, and in a very short period of time. And with Microsoft guaranteed to apply massive amounts of pricing pressure to Sony's entertainment division (which was once their most profitable, then their loss leader, and now they've finally returned to a marginal level of profitability)...well, Sony is going to have a nearly impossible time regaining the momentum they once had-- such a thing would require massive investment and risk taking, and done in competition with a ridiculously wealthy Microsoft.



    Final Fantasy XIII selling better on the PS3 isn't a 'loss' for Microsoft. The fact that a Final Fantasy game was released for a Microsoft console at all is, in fact, a major loss for Sony.



    But lets return to the money factor, which like it or not effects virtually everything.



    In the four years of 2006-2009, Sony profited $4.5 billion dollars. In the same four years, Microsoft profited $59 billion dollars.



    Considering Sony as a whole is worth $36 billion dollars, after 2010 Microsoft technically will have profited enough in the last 5 years to buy the entire Sony Corporation... TWICE, and still have enough profit left over to buy 20 million PS3's at retail price and hand them out-- 20,000 of those PS3's could be given as charity to the 20,000 employees Sony cut to achieve their return to profitability.



    In fiscal year 2009 (that ends in June for MSFT), Microsoft will have actually had it's most profitable year-- ever. They'll have made roughly $2.00 for every share of the company-- and there are 8.77 billion shares so I'll let you do the math. 2010, the average estimate is that Microsoft will make $2.20 for each of the 8.77 billion shares. Again, I'll let you do the math.



    Sony's reality is they are a struggling, restructuring, ill-equipped to compete, unfocused disjointed and confused entity losing market share in the videogame industry faster than Lehman Brothers lost stock value in late 2008.



    And they're doing it against a company that is profiting $370 million... a FUCKING WEEK. It takes Microsoft 12 weeks to make more money than Sony can in 208.



    So let us all kindly set aside these minor discussions on some bizarre micro-victory of Sony's taken completely out of context. In the long run, unless they win a $100 billion lottery and Microsoft's campus get's nuked by Apple Jihadists, Sony's long term prospects in the gaming industry are incredibly bleak. Their trend in the industry-- in the long term-- is decidely pointed towards the X axis rather than up and away from it.







    Reply 0
  • Epic "can do what we want" with Gears

  • Bill Gates is Evil 15/03/2010

    doulema, I like many other people are marking you down simply because it seems to bother you so much and we like to watch you squirm. Reply 0
  • Crunch culture killed Ensemble Studios

  • Bill Gates is Evil 14/03/2010

    he said fuck! Reply +7
  • PlayStation Move

  • Bill Gates is Evil 11/03/2010

    It looks like... ah... beaten by luster. Reply 0
  • Sony disses 360's first-party support

  • Bill Gates is Evil 17/02/2010

    The fact that Sony is now talking like they're an underdog is annoying as fuck.



    I should remind everyone that the PS2 sold nearly 140 million, compared with 24 million Xboxs sold. The fact that, despite Sony having the momentum of two massively successful generations, they've managed to fuck up enough that Microsoft is is beating them. Sony has lost respect, momentum, and most importantly sales this generation. Even if the PS3 marginally outsells the Xbox 360, Sony has been an absolute massive failure.



    It took the Playstation 2 five years to sell 100 million. It has taken the Playstation 3 four years to sell 33 million.
    Reply +15
  • Venezuelan pres. calls games "poison"

  • Bill Gates is Evil 19/01/2010

    Absolutely none of his 'nationalizing' and anti-globalist decisions have ever done anything to improve the state of his country. Venezuela is doing relatively well, yes, but because the price of oil is so high-- it blunts the results of the stupidity of his economic decisions.



    This is a new world, global economy-- any country that is building economic walls in the midst of advanced globalization is a complete fucking retard of a country. And this anti-capitalist rhetoric is sooo 1960's. It's a tragedy how many of you actually like Chavez, he's a closed minded barbarian who takes advantage of the weak masses for his own power-lust, all the while claiming 'self-lessness'



    And oh, he says stupid shit like videogames makes you buy cigarettes, alcohol, and drugs.
    Reply -1
  • Forza 3 AutoWeek DLC released

  • Bill Gates is Evil 12/01/2010

    The Ford Shelby and BMW M6 links lead to Eurogamer.net Reply 0
  • MS: Xbox 360 has sold 39m units

  • Bill Gates is Evil 07/01/2010

    "Okay supporting 3rd parties is great and its worked mainly due to friendly dev tools but when most 3rd party games are near identical (i said most) it makes exclusive most more crucial as a selling point."



    But also consider this: it's generally accepted that if a game comes out for the 360/PS3, the 360 is the vast majority of the time the better version. Gamers know this. People who own both PS3 and 360 rarely buy the PS3 version because of this perception, even if it's not true.



    Seemingly having the 'better' versions of multiplatform titles is, in a way, like an exclusive.
    Reply +9
  • Bill Gates is Evil 07/01/2010

    Microsoft is trying to unload 1st Party developers, not create new ones. Microsoft is all about supporting the third party. 1st party sales cannibalize sales on a console... just look at 3rd party abandonment on the Wii.



    Heavier 1st party development would certainly help console sales in the short run, but Microsoft likes 3rd parties keeping their console as the center of attention. It ensures more broad-based resource allocation to their console, even if much of that will trickle down to the PS3. Admittedly exclusives are big sellers for consoles, but when they're too much of a focus is shoves out the little guys. I actually quite like Microsoft's grassroots-friendly approach and will be a huge benefit in the long run for them.
    Reply +6
  • Bill Gates is Evil 07/01/2010

    Regardless of how many Xbox's have broken, the 360's software attach rate still far exceeds that of the PS3. Reply +7
  • That Was The News: Part 2

  • Bill Gates is Evil 02/01/2010

    I look good. I mean really good. HEY EVERYONE COME SEE HOW GOOD I LOOK Reply +5
  • Eurogamer's Game of the Year 2009

  • Bill Gates is Evil 31/12/2009

    Mentioning you are 'first' means you're very likely 'last' in many other, more meaningful aspects of life. Reply +25
  • PS3 cross-game chat on the cards?

  • Bill Gates is Evil 18/11/2009

    wait, PS3 STILL doesnt have cross game chat? Reply 0
  • PS3 sales up by over 80 per cent in US

  • Bill Gates is Evil 20/10/2009

    With the release of the Slim and a major price cut, only selling 110,000 more units isn't really all that impressive. Reply -5
  • Forza 3 out in Europe before US

  • Bill Gates is Evil 29/07/2009

    Microsoft is brilliant. Release it just a few days earlier in Europe, and Europeans don't feel like they're being treated like shit. Nintendo and Sony need to do this more often, especially Nintendo. Reply +2
  • Xbox 360 has sold over 30 million

  • Bill Gates is Evil 30/05/2009

    And secondly, 8.3 titles per console. That's not doable if 10 million of the 30 million counted were doubled-up counted as sales because of a "repair".



    Reality is, the PS3's sales are much higher than is deserved. A massive portion of that is coming from momentum from having your two previous consoles sell well over 100 million each. It's much easier to sell your first 10 million, if your previous console sold 140 million. You can totally fuck up every aspect of a console, charge people through the roof-- and you'll still have 10 million idiots willing to buy your console because they enjoyed their experience with the previous one.



    Microsoft however sold 24 million last generation, and will sell far more than that this one. That is an achievement. They've earned it. PS3 can in no way come close to matching PS2's sales, and for good reason: Sony has massively fucked up.



    The Sony of 2008 and 2009 hasn't earned them the sales they have with the PS3: The Sony of 1996-2005 is what has sold the vast majority PS3's.
    Reply 0
  • Bill Gates is Evil 30/05/2009

    Why the fuck would they count a Xbox 360 sent in for repairs as a sale? Are you guys retarded? Reply 0
  • Global crisis plays to PS3 strengths - Sony

  • Bill Gates is Evil 24/03/2009

    "Costing owners nothing? Costs time and they pay for their live service while lack of console."



    Well actually they get a 12-month extension of their gold service, at least that's how it works here in the U.S.
    Reply 0
  • Bill Gates is Evil 23/03/2009

    "The bottom line is theres hair splitting over games catalogs, if the ps3 was so bad, it wouldn't be sitting on 20+million sales"



    I wouldn't say the software on PS3 is completely bad, but just because it's sold 20 million doesn't necessarily mean it necessarily isn't. A lot of that is momentum from the PS2. It would have sold millions if it released without any software at all, just by the sheer tide of momentum from their previous console.
    Reply 0
  • Bill Gates is Evil 23/03/2009

    Goodfella, judging by your games list on Xbox.com, it appears (aside from the two rock bands and...crash bandicoot) that if you play games, it's for about 5 minutes.



    6 achievements for Gears of War 2?

    5 achievements for Fable 2?

    3 achievements for Fallout 3?

    1 achievement for GTA IV?

    1 achievement for The Orange Box?

    1 achievement for Halo 3?

    4 achievements for Bioshock?

    2 achievements for Crackdown?



    I could go on. My point is you don't seem to have really even played some of 360's best games for longer than 5 minutes.







    Reply 0
  • Bill Gates is Evil 23/03/2009

    When Sony says they have a "ten year plan" with the PS3, what they're really saying is that they're not going to be able to afford releasing PS4 when Microsoft releases Xbox 720. Sony thinks that PS3 will be able to go on with business as usual when Microsoft begins the next generation: and that's incredibly fucking ignorant. The Wii can get away with having lackluster technology because it's targeted towards a more casual-gamer who don't really care all that much about tech and graphics. The PS3 fanbase is composed mostly of people who truly do want to be at the forefront of gaming technology, and when they see Sony sitting on their asses trying to squeeze them for "profit" with an old outdated system, there will be an even larger migration of Sony fans to Microsoft's next console than there were with this one.



    Another thing people totally forget when comparing sales numbers is that Sony just came off it's second console that sold 130+ Million and Microsoft just came off it's first console that sold 25 million. The fact that Microsoft is outselling Sony worldwide just slightly is actually a pretty huge deal: Microsoft has nearly completely deflated all of Sony's momentum from their previous two generations.



    The reality for Sony (which they're completely unwilling to accept) is that they released a costly and technologically inferior system, a year after their competitor. You don't release something of lower quality with a higher price than your competitor and expect to retain your lead. Nintendo made the same mistake with the N64, refusing to use the CD format and thus disabling themselves for an entire generation while newcomer Sony stole their thunder. The PS3 is Sony's N64.



    What Sony needs to do is not try to extend the lifespan of a console that is so difficult to develope for that it's competitor's system consistently outperforms it (despite being older), it needs to get it's ass in gear making the PS4. Because nobody is going to care about the PS3 once Microsoft releases it's new console.



    The real reason Sony is going on about it's 10-year plan with the PS3 isn't because they've thought up some brilliant business plan, it's because they have no choice: they're struggling to even make a profit as a company, they can't invest the billiions required for the PS4 because they don't have them.



    And when you can't afford to invest the money for a new console, then you have to do the next best thing: sell the public on this "10-year plan", which nobody is buying. If Sony isn't ready for Microsoft's next console, you can permanently say goodbye to Sony ever having a leadership position in this industry again.
    Reply 0
  • Xbox Live Friends limit to be increased

  • Bill Gates is Evil 12/01/2009

    "we've heard the please for that"



    fail
    Reply 0
  • Sony US slags off rival consoles

  • Bill Gates is Evil 09/01/2009

    "However, when you take a look at the feature offerings side by side, there is only one true winner in delivering total value and price."



    This quote is awesome. PS3 does indeed win in delivering total "price".
    Reply 0
  • Puzzle Arcade for XBLA tomorrow

  • Bill Gates is Evil 29/12/2008

    I'm embarassed to admit I've already put about 10 hours into this game. Reply 0
  • Harrison: Home is "brilliantly realised"

  • Bill Gates is Evil 06/12/2008

    NXE rocks my socks off Reply 0
  • Xbox 360 to hit 25m sales this month

  • Bill Gates is Evil 18/11/2008

    "Party mode" is when ( i think) 8 people can talk to each other at the same time, regardless of what game you're playing.



    It's a bit like the one on one "private chat" feature, only uh...with 8 people instead.
    Reply 0
  • Building BioShock

  • Bill Gates is Evil 08/08/2008

    It's like I'm on some other planet seeing Eurogamer mention Objectivism and Ayn Rand. Reply 0
  • Bungie president "certainly didn't agree" with decision to postpone Halo E3 reveal

  • Bill Gates is Evil 24/07/2008

    From what I've read isn't Microsoft Game Studios the ones working on the next halo??? And that Bungies next game is something unexpected i.e. not halo? Reply 0
  • Bill Gates is Evil 24/07/2008

    Where did Bungie say anything about it being a Halo product? Thats not necessarily confirmed is it? Reply 0
  • Final Fantasy XIII coming to 360

  • Bill Gates is Evil 14/07/2008

    I'm totally going to buy this for my 360 Reply 0
  • Thousands claim Hot Coffee compensation

  • Bill Gates is Evil 25/06/2008

    sex with girls is so gay Reply 0
  • Flashing the Cash

  • Bill Gates is Evil 11/02/2008

    Good points 3william, most especially the decaf part.



    I think what they were grasping at in the article was that the videogame industry is a growth industry, and that they don't believe a recession will halt that growth (though it certainly seems reasonable that it'll slow the growth).



    Last recession (2001) gaming outpaced everything else and was labeled "recession-proof" from what I remember. Gambling, cigarettes are also classified as "recession-proof".
    Reply 0
  • Bill Gates is Evil 11/02/2008

    And to put that number into perspective, Yahoo is (technically, though Microsoft is offering a few billion more) about $38 billion, and Microsoft is worth about $270 billion.



    Bill Gates-- theoretically-- could buy Sony by himself and have about $17 billion left over.
    Reply 0
  • Bill Gates is Evil 11/02/2008

    Sony would cost 200 billion USD AFAIK btw.



    Why the fuck do people make shit up? You just made up that figure. You pulled it out of your ass.



    Did that bother you at all? It's not the number that bothers me (thats not even remotely a big deal) it's the fact that you seem so at ease with bullshitting.



    Sony, right now, is worth about $43 billion you bullshitting fuck face.



    (I'm angry at his intentional disrespect for his own words and for reality--i.e. he made it up--, not the actual number)



    Reply 0