I prefer the experience that I get on the Xbox 360, yes, but I play every platform (except the PC). The fact that the Vita requires you to use the touch screen for something that could easily be done with a button (like menu navigation) is an example of poor UI design. Nintendo has given you the option to use buttons or touch interface for menus for the entire lifespan of the DS and 3DS. And I've bought a Vita since this episode. There are things I like about it and things that I'm going to be critical of, because Sony deserves both of those reactions to this product. I'm always going to be bias towards the things that give me the best experience. That's how we all are.
I totally agree with you 100% Ship that it could be done with buttons and as I mentioned that my first instinct was to use them, but in the cast you were beginning to sound like the Irish guy from Gamespot that was basically nitpicking something and blowing things out of proportion. Again it could be done with buttons but if you or anyone has been using any iOS or Android device on a consistent basis it shouldn't be difficult to figure out, your statements made it sound as if its was extremely difficult. As stated earlier I work at Target in the mean time and when walking past electronics throughout the day I saw kids working that thing with no problem what so ever.
No product is perfect and as in the pervious paragraph they should allow you to use the UI with buttons (I know I would) but being critical and being overtly negative are 2 different things. I would prefer the buttons to be a bit bigger but its not something worth crying about when overall the machine is very nice.
Now as for the Pro-MS stance, I agree we all push what we cherish more, to me its more important to not have my money gouged and to be given great service, so for that I prefer the PS3 since I refuse to pay for Live. As gamers what we spend our money on dictates what other scheme companies will come up in the future to nicke and dime us, in the end this will only hurt those individuals that can't afford much.
Live is nice and better integrated than PSN but it is not worth paying for, remember you guys complain about Online Passes but Live in essence is the original online pass. Its hypocritical to say how it isn't right for gamers to pay to play online yet if you don't pay for Live you can't play ANY game on your Xbox used or new. That is where the bias comes in or at least the perception, in which perception is reality, because the fact is that if it wasn't a requirement to pay to play online on the Xbox most people wouldn't since other than online play there's really nothing worth paying for. I don't see the majority of people paying $40 a year just to have XGC and Party if regular chat was implemented on a Silver account.
Again your free to express your opinons but at least be consistant with the message, people notice when you guys pick and choose one thing over the other and giving MS much more favorable stances on almost everything, even when thinking about the repercussions would hurt gamers in the end.
Remember it was MS that instigated that games be $60, that has now led to EA pretty much charging $70 (Prothean DLC) for the complete version of ME3. MS started charging people to play online which is what led to online passes from companies wanting their share. People complain about $15 map packs but Halo started the trend in over charging for maps long before.
This is the problem with gamers, they give money to things without thinking what may come up ahead and then moan and groan without realizing that you reap what you sow.
Thank you for responding to my first post and I love listening to you guys.