The whole deal of a console war is highly misconcepted though, people always think its between the compaines, but the compaines all always win because they make enough to sustain themselves. The real console war exists only in the customers mind, whatever they choose wins, the only losers are when a consumer chooses to not purchase anything based on the other compaines, so me for example, nintendo and microsoft win the console war because of my choice to support them while i dont support sony, therefore in my own personal case, i enabled nintendo and microsoft to win, but not sony. This is differing a lot for other people too in cases where nintendo may be the only winner or sony and microsoft win, and so on.
But its again, people ragged on Microsoft, not letting it pass last year when they did everything that people would want, yet the PS3 had many issues early on and no one acts like these made sony struggle in their own right, their own team warned the execs that launching for $600 while the $500 one was a bare bones option, was a bad deal, yet sony did it. Then came the other big issues like the PSN blackout, the whole deal of PS3s being sought after by criminals was another deal as well early on. There were issues yet people act now like Sony is somehow flawless? I mean even nintendo has had its ups and downs with the wii u right now but its still got a lot of potential going for it and otherwise its fine just because it continues to rule the handheld gaming industry with things simply like pokemon, but its really just dumb how people make an issue in some deals that were present in others long before, then when a current event comes up with this just being noticed, everyone flips out.
Its like how the unpleasable halo fanbase made issues with halo 4, people complained over the stupidest deal of level unlocks being too short and that there wasn't enough to unlock, despite the fact halo 3, 5 years eariler, had not much of an armor customization and all the stuff could be unlocked in like a week, no one made an issue about this and yet they did with 4. In fact reach did the same thing where rank only meant how long you play the game, not denominating skill like in 2 and 3, all people did for rank in that game was level up gain in game money to spend on customizing a spartan, that is all. In halo 4 though, because unlocks involved gameplay changing elements, like say similar to other shooters like COD4 and many battlefields, people blew their tops not understanding the fact that, they had to make the in game rank up system so that people could gain more flexibility and access more gear because it impacted the gameplay. Unlocking stuff like the BR or carbine was now dependent on level up, but people complained about this despite there being much more to unlock than 3, and people wanted rank up to be based on skill, yet because of this gameplay impacting stuff to unlock, people never realized that if there was such a level up system based on skill that could go up or down and was tied to unlocks, this would divide the playerbase in such a negative way, it would mean if someone leveled up to get some new rifle, and then they went down a level after gaining said rifle and either lost it or just couldnt progress any further due to their own skill, it would be atrocious and people would be so divided, more would be inclined to cheat because they could not see the full sandbox of weaponry. I am only glad this has otherwise been killed for good with the whole halo 1-4 collection coming out so anyone who likes 1, 2, 3, or 4s mulitplayer will be satisfied now. Hopefully 5 will be better due to the beta.
