I'm fairly convinced that you don't speak for everyone. Just because you may have no interest in other games, doesn't mean that others feel the same. The fact is, that the PS3 has, and has had for many years now, a much wider range of games available compared to the 360, which every year has one bro shooter, and one…

Ah, I can see now why we have a misunderstanding here. I wasn't saying that the PS4's services were more advanced than those of the Next Xbox, because obviously we don't know what those are. I was saying that they're already a marked improvement over the 360's feature set, and that they're likely to be free, whilst…

That was one event, one mistake, that was apologised for and rectified so that it wouldn't happen again. Since then, there's not been a single problem, whilst Microsoft's 360 accounts were hacked and stolen for over a year without Microsoft ever even ackowledging that there was a problem. So that's fine, you keep…

Are you kidding me? Since 2011 the 360 has had maybe two exclusive each year, whilst the PS3 has had at least five. Hell, in 2011 it easily had more than eight. Sony constantly pump out exclusive titles of their own, and get more from Japan. This year, for instance, the PS3 has Tales of Xillia, Ni No Kuni, Sly 4, God…

* - Watching your friends play their games live, leaving comments and talking to them all the while. Taking control of the action, controlling their game from your own house to provide assistance if they need it. Streaming and sharing footage with ease. That sort of thing. I'd call all of that a step up from what we…

Thanks for offering that one. When I made those comments I'd hoped to have someone back me up and offer that view, so I'm glad that you did. It's fine if that's what Microsoft wants, my problem is just that they changed their mind halfway through, after they'd already taken everyone's money. That's just not cool.

You clearly have a very short-term memory. For GTA4, Fallout 3 and Skyrim, it was at least six months each for their DLC. I had every intention of buying their extra content, as I loved the original games, but their publishers changed that when they decided that the money of 360 owners meant more than their PS3 owners.

Oh, definitely, it's hardly representative at all. But it still shows that a lot of once-loyal and satisfied Xbox owners have become more and more unhappy over the last few years, and that's certainly going to carry across to the next console, especially if on May 21st, Microsoft pitch the console as a casual media…

It's definitely best for Respawn to have a current-gen version as well, otherwise the game would bomb. Just seems strange that EA would agree to it, and that Microsoft would bother at all, because the existence of the 360 version would entirely destroy any Next Xbox sales, so what are they really gaining from it?

I'm surpised by how few actually noticed Microsoft's change in direction. The fact is, that they just have no loyalty or care towards their customers, they'll just bail out and jump on the next bandwagon that comes along.

You're not wrong. Yet things are changing, because Activision jumped on to Sony's stage to announce Destiny for PS4, with timed/exclusive DLC for the PS4 and PS3 versions, so there's clearly a bit of a turnaround going on here. Timed exclusives I can understand, but genuine exclusives? From EA? Not likely. It could…

Well said. If something's timed exclusive, then as a PS3 owner, I know I'm getting it later anyway so there's no reason to buy a 360 for the privilege, and yet by the time the content does hit the PS3, I've likely moved on from the game and lost interest anyway. Key examples being, GTA4, Fallout 3, Fallout New Vegas…

Well, there's supposedly a 360 version as well, so the game could definitely still sell, but if it's on the 360 as well then it won't really do anything to sell the Next Xbox anyway, which makes you wonder why EA and Microsoft would even bother...

Oh, there'll always be some people that are stupid enough to keep doing it. But just look at comments sections across the internet, a large portion of 360 owners have grown highly bitter and resentful over the last few years and comments like "I'll be leaving the Xbox behind and buying a PS4 next time around" have…

I can't really imagine this happening. This is EA we're talking about here. They've been chasing the elusive "Call of Duty killer" for years now, and this could well be it, so why would they make it exclusive to an unproven platform with an install base of zero? Obviously Microsoft would be throwing a lot of money…

The news regarding the EA Partners program included a bit that said "This wouldn't effect games currently in progress, like Fuse or Respawn's new game." :)

Sadly, the amount of money they've made for doing sweet shit all by having millions upon millions of users pay for basic online privileges, will probably mean that the next console will have similar subscriptions.

Okay, thanks Captain Obvious. We've already established that sales are good for game developers and publishers. I agreed with you on that, and said that third-party developers and publishers are right to go multi-platform, so you're not wrong!

I'm not saying that I do have a say in how much he's given, or how much he should be given. That goes without saying. I'm just saying that I can completely understand why there's such a backlash on how much he's earnt, after doing nothing but greenlighting Call of Duty sequels each and every year, whilst releasing…

"Fun" and "Length" factor in to two seperate issues, for me. A game may be incredibly fun, and that certainly makes it worth playing, but it doesn't at all mean that it's worth buying, much less at £40/$60. It could be the most fun four hours you'll ever have in your life, but for me, that still wouldn't justify a £40…