Sony In Trouble?

[quote name='mykevermin']...unless the console makers themselves dictate or limit price drops and variation. Or, like Nintendo, create large barriers that make price reductions unlikely.

"You can pay us a $25 royalty for every copy sold."
"fuck you, that's crazy talk!"
"Alright, then. Go publish your title for the other consoles that don't exist."
[/quote]

In the ideal one console world, you'd have multiple companies making the machines ala DVD Players etc....but that will never happen.

But besides the point, there's only so much they can do with pricing. People are used to paying a certain amount for games ($50-60 new for a decade or two) so it's not like they can ramp costs up over night by shafting publishers on licensing fees.


Ah, the good ol' dmaul "I don't like games" rerun post. ;)
Click to expand...

I like games. But jesus christ, people here talk about them like their actually some important part of life and take them and the industry way too seriously IMO. They're fun little time wasters, and either worth the time and money to pay or not. Not worth all the heated arguments, concerns of monopolies etc. IMO.

Good on ya. Be happy with what you have, and don't dwell on what you don't. You'll make a fine husband for someone one day. heh.
Click to expand...

Again, it's gaming man. Essentially toys. A silly little hobby. No need to worry about it or dwell on anything. Just play games you have fun with and keep buying them and playing them as long as it's worth the time and money. They definitely are for me. If someday they aren't, I have plenty of other hobbies, an active social life and a busy career so I'll get by just fine without them.

The launch price of a console is a non sequitur. And I can't think of any benefits outside of a cleaner-looking entertainment center for me. Which is nice and satisfies my clean freak-ness. But market consolidation is totally, entirely, and undoubtedly a bad thing. What *are* the benefits to market consolidation to you? Other than simply a one-size-fits-all console, that is. Or is that the only benefit? If so, elaborate on what the secondary benefits may be. I just don't see 'em.
Click to expand...

1. Price. It's damn expensive to own all 3 consoles, and too expensive IMO to own the Xbox 360 and PS3 which play largely the same games with a handful of worthwhile exclusives. I never paid more than $199.99 for a consoel before this generation. So buying two $300+ consoles is absolutely out of the fucking question for me.

2. Neatness. Even my 360 is on the floor beside my TV stand as I only have 3 shelves and they are taken by my receiver, cable box and Blu ray player.

3. Standardization. Developers can focus on one version of the game, no lowest common denominator crap from porting to multiple machines. That was more of a problem last gen with games being made for the PS2 and ported to the Xbox/GC and not looking as good as Xbox exclusives.

Also, keep in mind we're not saying total market consolidation. But just going back to 2 consoles. Nintendo and Someone else. Just like it was in the 8 bit, 16 bit and 32 bit eras. That worked out fine from a competition/good games standpoint.

There's just no need for 3 major consoles, especially when 2 offer pretty much identical gaming experiences in terms of graphics, online play, genres etc.

(in the end, none of this is even gonna come close to happening anyway, but let's keep the pipe dream going)[/QUOTE]
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Again, things were different back then. Gaming was new.

Now its established and competition between developers would keep a solid supply of AAA games regardless of how many consoles are out there.

Games cost a lot to make, and there are a ton of great games that come out every year. Thus their is intense pressure to make AAA games that stand out and will sell enough to make a profit.

Shovelware will always be around and its easier to make a profit on a cheap to make game, but it will never be the only thing out and kill the industry like it did with Atari in the 80s again.[/quote]

There isn't as much pressure to make games as great as you think there is. Why else would THQ still be in business or sega making more money now then they did in the past despite Sonic 06, Ironman, Hulk and the phelora of crap that doesn't even come close to the Genesis/Saturn/DC Era of their games. The fact that amazes me is that Sega is making more money NOW then they did in their so called golden years when the DC was their flagship and that kind of saddens me.

I could also go on about Ubisoft being shovelware and that they abuse the hell out of franchises. How many freaking Rainbow Six style games have they given us? Splinter Cell, Rainbow 6, Vegas, Endwar when does it end? Though I'm not a fan of those games so I can't really call it shovelware as there has to be some group who enjoys this stuff to make it a yearly visit.

There is less crap nowadays yes, but there is still a huge heaping mound of shit that is everywhere and if there was a monopoly it would sell a lot better. If you think only AAA stuff sells, then how do you explain Valkyria Chronicles only selling 33k while any piece of shit by THQ does gangbusters?
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']In the ideal one console world, you'd have multiple companies making the machines ala DVD Players etc....but that will never happen.[/quote]

I was hoping you wouldn't go there. The minute you have one console multiple manufacturers, you have a PC. Or, at the very least, the compatibility issues inherent in a PC. If you don't, it's moot, because the consistency in manufacturing necessitates very little, if no, price variation in each console.

But besides the point, there's only so much they can do with pricing. People are used to paying a certain amount for games ($50-60 new for a decade or two) so it's not like they can ramp costs up over night by shafting publishers on licensing fees.
Click to expand...

No. $60 new, with few exceptions before that (thinking of the anomalies like Street Fighter II Turbo on SNES, or Phantasy Star IV on Genesis), since the Xbox 360. Not to mention all the CE/LE knuckleheads have shown the activisions and eas that they're willing to spend $70-80 on a single game. It can go up easily. It can also go up indirectly via DLC. Sell a title for $60, put 2/3 of it on the disc. Sell them the other 1/3 for $10-20.

I like games. But jesus christ, people here talk about them like their actually some important part of life and take them and the industry way to seriously IMO. Their fun little time wasters, and either worth the time and money to pay or not. Not worth all the heated arguments, concerns of monopolies etc. IMO.
Click to expand...

And I like to argue. Get over yourself and your assumptions about the games industry. I have several hobbies, but I can't argue like a complete bastard professionally, just like you can't. It's fun to have heated arguments without the typical pretentious niceties of academia. You know that, darlin', even if you disagree with how fun it is.

Why do you think I spend so much time posting in the vs forums or in anti-Sony threads? I don't love Sony. They don't love me back. But I sure am goddamned jolly well drawn to contentious discussions, aren't i?

Be sporting.

Again, it's gaming man. Essentially toys. A silly little hobby. No need to worry about it or dwell on anything. Just play games you have fun with and keep buying them and playing them as long as it's worth the time and money. They definitely are for me. If someday they aren't, I have plenty of other hobbies, an active social life and a busy career so I'll get by just fine without them.
Click to expand...

Right. Who are you justifying this to? Me? We're all nerdin' it up in here today. So let's not get all "I spend 4 hours today debating video games, now I have to attack everyone else's actions as irrational." It's like watchin' a woman bitch at those TV shows where Joan Rivers makes fun of the way women dress.

1. Price. It's damn expensive to own all 3 consoles, and too expensive IMO to own the Xbox 360 and PS3 which play largely the same games with a handful of worthwhile exclusives.
Click to expand...

I suppose. That's such a "me me me" thing, though. If games aren't important to you, don't worry about what isn't available to you, then.

2. Neatness. Even my 360 is on the floor beside my TV stand as I only have 3 shelves and they are taken by my receiver, cable box and Blu ray player.
Click to expand...

Agree, but beyond trivial.

3. Standardization. Developers can focus on one version of the game, no lowest common denominator crap from porting to multiple machines. That was more of a problem last gen with games being made for the PS2 and ported to the Xbox/GC and not looking as good as Xbox exclusives.
Click to expand...

I suppose I'll agree to a degree here. But this is not the case, necessarily, in your "Nintendo and some hybrid of MS/Sony" future. Just sayin'. See below.

Also, keep in mind we're not saying total market consolidation. But just going back to 2 consoles. Nintendo and Someone else. Just like it was in the 8 bit, 16 bit and 32 bit eras. That worked out fine from a competition/good games standpoint.
Click to expand...

I think that's rosy-eyed hindsight for you, and ignores so much of the complexity that has enveloped the games industry in 20 years that makes this over-idealized historical gaming past impossible to rekindle. Like trying to bring back milk trucks and milk men.

There's just no need for 3 major consoles, especially when 2 offer pretty much identical gaming experiences in terms of graphics, online play, genres etc.
Click to expand...

That's assuming there can't be three unique experiences. Or 4. Or 5. Or that, had we 2, they wouldn't offer similar styles of gaming. Like in the Genesis/SNES days. ;)
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I was hoping you wouldn't go there. The minute you have one console multiple manufacturers, you have a PC. Or, at the very least, the compatibility issues inherent in a PC. If you don't, it's moot, because the consistency in manufacturing necessitates very little, if no, price variation in each console.
[/quote]

Not really. There just has to be a standard. Yes they will all cost the same probably (most DVD/Blu Ray players cost about the same for comparable models from different companies and being standardized these woud all be comparable unless some wanted to add extra features like Tivo etc.). The benefit is only having to buy one console. Cheaper than multiple consoles, and neater in the home theater.

No. $60 new, with few exceptions before that (thinking of the anomalies like Street Fighter II Turbo on SNES, or Phantasy Star IV on Genesis), since the Xbox 360. Not to mention all the CE/LE knuckleheads have shown the activisions and eas that they're willing to spend $70-80 on a single game. It can go up easily. It can also go up indirectly via DLC. Sell a title for $60, put 2/3 of it on the disc. Sell them the other 1/3 for $10-20.
Click to expand...

Pricing is still pretty standard. $50 new the past few generations (with some SNES/Genesis etc. games being more), $60 this generation (with some stupid LEs etc. costing more since they have knick knacks etc. included). Download prices have stayed stable.

But again, the prices will be set by what people are willing to pay and what is selling. The number of consoles out there will have little impact on that as prices are pretty much the same across the board anyway on download stuff and games (with Wii games being $10 cheaper of course).

And I like to argue. Get over yourself and your assumptions about the games industry. I have several hobbies, but I can't argue like a complete bastard professionally, just like you can't. It's fun to have heated arguments without the typical pretentious niceties of academia. You know that, darlin', even if you disagree with how fun it is.
Click to expand...

I'm with you there. I was more referring to the fanboys that take the stuff personally with that comment. Though I don't personally worry about monopolies, sales etc. with the industry as I just don't care. I just want to play games I like and for this topic I'd like to have all the good HD games on one console.

Right. Who are you justifying this to? Me? We're all nerdin' it up in here today. So let's not get all "I spend 4 hours today debating video games, now I have to attack everyone else's actions as irrational."
Click to expand...

Again, referring to those that take it personally (fanboys etc.) not those of us that just like to procrastinate in the office by bitching on internet forums. :D I'm talking the people who do it so much, and take it so seriously, that you wonder if they ever even play any games since they're on here bitching morning, day and night. Most all of us like to put of work and waste tome time discussing the industry. Most all of us don't take it personally and get pissed off over it though (you included).

I suppose. That's such a "me me me" thing, though. If games aren't important to you, don't worry about what isn't available to you, then.
Click to expand...

It's just cost benefit thing. For every hobby people have so much money they are willing to spend on it. I'd like to have the option to play every game that interests me, but I'm not willing to own multiple consoles at current prices. A couple years into last generation you could own all three for $600. It still costs $700 for a 360 with HDD and a PS3.

And I'm definitely a "me me me" person, especially with hobbies. My only concern with hobbies is my own enjoyment of them, and enjoying them at a reasonable cost. I don't care about others experiences with them as long as I'm having fun. Why should I? Hobbies are a personal thing.

Agree, but beyond trivial.
Click to expand...

Trivial, but huge advantage for me as neat freak.

I suppose I'll agree to a degree here. But this is not the case, necessarily, in your "Nintendo and some hybrid of MS/Sony" future. Just sayin'. See below.
Click to expand...

I see what you're alluding to there, but I don't think it will happen. What Nintendo is doing is too different from what developers focusing on the PS3/360 want to do. You're not going to see a game like Call of Duty 7 developed for the less powerful Nintendo console and ported over to the Sony/MS machine regardless of the size of the Nintendo user base. Infinity Ward likes to push the graphics envelop and online gaming.

Point being I think you'd see relatively little overlap in games between a Sony/MS machine and a Nintendo machine. Just like there's tons of multiplatform games on the 360 and PS3 now that don't get Wii ports. The Nintendo console can't do the graphics and online stuff, and those types of games just don't sell to the kids, Nintendo fans and casual gamers that make up a huge chunk of the Wii user base.

It was a problem with the PS2 as it had a huge user base and the gap in power was as huge as this generation where you have the 360/PS3 and the non-HD Wii which is basically a gamecube with waggle. So developers could port games more easily than they can from/to the Wii this generation. And I expect the same will hold true in the future as I don't see Nintendo ever putting out something nearly as powerful as the competition in any future generation. They've found their money making niche with cheap hardware than makes a profit early on selling games to kids and casual gamers who don't care about having the best graphics, online play etc.

I think that's rosy-eyed hindsight for you, and ignores so much of the complexity that has enveloped the games industry in 20 years that makes this over-idealized historical gaming past impossible to rekindle. Like trying to bring back milk trucks and milk men.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I'm just saying that with 100% certainty there will never be a shortage of AAA games, nor the indusrty die in shovelware as Atari did, regardless of whether we have 1, 2 or 3 (or more) consoles out there. Competition is among software sells, not hardware (which loses money).

Also, I'm enjoying the 360 the most of any console since the SNES, so I think those rosy days have been rekindled. At least for me anyway.


That's assuming there can't be three unique experiences. Or 4. Or 5. Or that, had we 2, they wouldn't offer similar styles of gaming. Like in the Genesis/SNES days. ;)
Click to expand...

My gripes would go away if you had 3 machines that offered something different for sure. And I agree on the Genesis/SNES dig. There was no need to own both of those either (I only had a SNES) and I was annoyed at needing a N64 and PS1 and all three consoles last generation.

It's just a waste of money and space IMO. If you have something like the Wii and the PS3/360 that are very different, then I see more need/justification for having multiple hardware out there.

But there's no benefit IMO to having multiple machines playing more or less the same games/types of games. Just a kick in the wallet and clutter in the home theater.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Not really. There just has to be a standard.[truncation!]..Download prices have stayed stable.[/quote]

I totally disagree, but that's just going to stay right there. Suffice it to say, I lived through "third party manufactured Macintosh clones." ;)

But again, the prices will be set by what people are willing to pay and what is selling. The number of consoles out there will have little impact on that as prices are pretty much the same across the board anyway on download stuff and games (with Wii games being $10 cheaper of course).
Click to expand...

Right, but half the story. If development costs go up (and they will), and market consolidation renders publisher negotiation power moot (and it might), there's a much greater chance that you wouldn't be able to pick up any given Ubisoft title for $20 off MSRP within a damned month of the title launching.

Hell, there's an argument FOR market diversity in consoles. Keep dropping those prices like flies, monkeys!

I'm with you there. [truncated!] I'm talking the people who do it so much, and take it so seriously, that you wonder if they ever even play any games since they're on here bitching morning, day and night.
Click to expand...

word. kisses and all that. ;)

Most all of us like to put of work and waste tome time discussing the industry. Most all of us don't take it personally and get pissed off over it though (you included).
Click to expand...

Yeah, and me included in the not-spending-enough-time-revising-that-goddamned-manuscript category. ;)

It's just cost benefit thing.
Click to expand...

Dammit, dmaul, you KNOW how I feel about rational choice. You did that on purpose! :lol:

And I'm definitely a "me me me" person, especially with hobbies. My only concern with hobbies is my own enjoyment of them, and enjoying them at a reasonable cost. I don't care about others experiences with them as long as I'm having fun. Why should I? Hobbies are a personal thing.
Click to expand...

hobbies are a *social* thing. Even those dudes what build ham radios and battleships in glass bottles.

I see what you're alluding to there, but I don't think it will happen. What Nintendo is doing is too different from what developers focusing on the PS3/360 want to do. You're not going to see a game like Call of Duty 7 developed for the less powerful Nintendo console and ported over to the Sony/MS machine regardless of the size of the Nintendo user base. Infinity Ward likes to push the graphics envelop and online gaming.
Click to expand...

Depends on what happens the next go-round. Nintendo has *no* reason not to change their approach currently, so you may be right.

There was no need to own both of those either (I only had a SNES) and I was annoyed at needing a N64 and PS1 and all three consoles last generation.
Click to expand...

What was it about the Genesis that made it feel like there were such enormous differences in how their sports games played? I seem to recall the Madden and NHL '9X franchises playing like shit on the SNES. They couldn't have been *that* different.
 
[quote name='Paco']There isn't as much pressure to make games as great as you think there is. Why else would THQ still be in business or sega making more money now then they did in the past despite Sonic 06, Ironman, Hulk and the phelora of crap that doesn't even come close to the Genesis/Saturn/DC Era of their games. The fact that amazes me is that Sega is making more money NOW then they did in their so called golden years when the DC was their flagship and that kind of saddens me.

I could also go on about Ubisoft being shovelware and that they abuse the hell out of franchises. How many freaking Rainbow Six style games have they given us? Splinter Cell, Rainbow 6, Vegas, Endwar when does it end? Though I'm not a fan of those games so I can't really call it shovelware as there has to be some group who enjoys this stuff to make it a yearly visit.

There is less crap nowadays yes, but there is still a huge heaping mound of shit that is everywhere and if there was a monopoly it would sell a lot better. If you think only AAA stuff sells, then how do you explain Valkyria Chronicles only selling 33k while any piece of shit by THQ does gangbusters?[/QUOTE]


You're putting extra words in my mouth. I'm just saying there will always be plenty of good games to play, regardless of how many consoles are out there, and that we'll never see shovelware kill the industry gain.

I'm not saying there isn't a lot of shit out there, or that shit doesn't sell, or that all good games sell.

I'm just saying there will always be enough good games to keep us all satisfied regardless of how much shovelware is out there. Some genres like SRPGs may die off as they're so niche and just don't sell. But that has nothing to do with shovelware, and is just that the genre doesn't have mainstream appeal.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I totally disagree, but that's just going to stay right there. Suffice it to say, I lived through "third party manufactured Macintosh clones." ;)
[/quote]

It could be done if there were standards required. There are plenty of brands making good dvd players, blu ray players, cd players etc. No reason they couldn't do the same with a console that was required to meet standards. Some would be better than others just like with dvd players etc. of course. But nothing wrong with that. But that's a pipe dream. Best I can hope for is getting back a two console world.

Right, but half the story. If development costs go up (and they will), and market consolidation renders publisher negotiation power moot (and it might), there's a much greater chance that you wouldn't be able to pick up any given Ubisoft title for $20 off MSRP within a damned month of the title launching.
Click to expand...

That's a moot point. Digital download will kill that off either way. Prices will drop much slower I'm sure--just look at PSN, XBLA and Wii VC for examples. I don't think the number of consoles out there will impact that. With digital download they have the ball entirely in their court since there's no second hand market driving down prices.

Yeah, and me included in the not-spending-enough-time-revising-that-goddamned-manuscript category. ;)
Click to expand...

Oy, same here. Procrastinating revising some surveys for my research project, getting some materials ready to train undergrads who'll be doing the post-intervention surveys and need to get busy finishing up my dissertation now that I defended the prospectus.


hobbies are a *social* thing. Even those dudes what build ham radios and battleships in glass bottles.
Click to expand...

Depends on the hobby. Single player games are social. And even for social hobbies it more comes down to whether you enjoy it or not and what your willing to pay to do it. I don't care if all my friends hate Oblivion or think the 360 costs to much. I've had a fucking blast dumping 54 hours into it the past couple of months and plan to keep dumping a lot more time into it! :D

Depends on what happens the next go-round. Nintendo has *no* reason not to change their approach currently, so you may be right.
Click to expand...

Yep, no reason at all. They got their ass kicked the past 2 generation trying to compete with Sony and then Sony/MS and are printing money with their new direction. No chance they change next go around. Now if the Wii 2 doesn't sell as well, and sells of games like Wii Fit etc. slow down, they may have to do something different 2 or 3 generations down the road. But that remains to be seen. And I think they'd likely quit before they went back to trying to compete for core gamers with top graphics etc.

What was it about the Genesis that made it feel like there were such enormous differences in how their sports games played? I seem to recall the Madden and NHL '9X franchises playing like shit on the SNES. They couldn't have been *that* different.
Click to expand...

IDK. I didn't really play sports games back then. I recall them looking much better on the Genesis. Maybe something in the processor on the genesis could handle more players on the screen than the SNES?
 
[quote name='leveskikesko']Sony in Trouble?

...ok

*Plays a few sessions of Little Big Planet on BC60 GB ps3*[/QUOTE]

Nice, you saved them.
 
Well, I really just need it as a Blu-Ray player and to try out Valkryia Chronicles.

I may just have to suck it up and save $300 and just get a stand alone player.
 
To simplify this arguement, there's no reason someone who just wants to play HD games would ever buy a $400 PS3 over a $300 360.

The arguement gets stickier with blu-ray and other non-gaming factors involved, but as a games machine, there's nothing you can say that is an advantage on PS3, except when factoring in your personal opinion.

360 has more games, it costs less, and the games both systems play, play better on 360 the majority of the time. Everything else is just Sony Defense Force noise. This is what matters to people.

At the baseline of the argument, Sony loses.

Now if you're such a huge fan of Valkryrias and MGS4 that seeing them made your Naruto headband pop right off your head and you choked on your imported pocky, then the decision sways the other way more.

It can be looked at as you're losing out on a lot more opportunities by going with PS3 than you are losing out on by going with 360.
 
[quote name='jer7583']To simplify this arguement, there's no reason someone who just wants to play HD games would ever buy a $400 PS3 over a $300 360.

The arguement gets stickier with blu-ray and other non-gaming factors involved, but as a games machine, there's nothing you can say that is an advantage on PS3, except when factoring in your personal opinion.

360 has more games, it costs less, and the games both systems play, play better on 360 the majority of the time. Everything else is just Sony Defense Force noise. This is what matters to people.

At the baseline of the argument, Sony loses.

Now if you're such a huge fan of Valkryrias and MGS4 that seeing them made your Naruto headband pop right off your head and you choked on your imported pocky, then the decision sways the other way more.

It can be looked at as you're losing out on a lot more opportunities by going with PS3 than you are losing out on by going with 360.[/quote]
The initial cost of ownership on the 360 may be cheaper, but after a year of ownership the PS3 definitely becomes the cheaper system.

It's funny how you are clearly attacking Sony fanboys, seeing as you are a blatant fanboy yourself.
 
[quote name='naes']The initial cost of ownership on the 360 may be cheaper, but after a year of ownership the PS3 definitely becomes the cheaper system.

It's funny how you are clearly attacking Sony fanboys, seeing as you are a blatant fanboy yourself.[/QUOTE]

Fact: You have to have a Live subscription to play a game on your Xbox 360.

Fact: You have to pay $50 a year for Xbox Live.
 
[quote name='zewone']
I may just have to suck it up and save $300 and just get a stand alone player.[/QUOTE]

You don't need to save quite that much. Just watch for sales. The Sony S350 was $150 on SonyStyle on Black Friday and $180 a couple other places. And it and a few other good players (Pioneer BD35 etc.) have been $225-250 since.


[quote name='jer7583']To simplify this arguement, there's no reason someone who just wants to play HD games would ever buy a $400 PS3 over a $300 360.

The arguement gets stickier with blu-ray and other non-gaming factors involved, but as a games machine...[/quote]

True, but at $400 it's still a good value for someone who does want a game machine AND a blu ray player (and doesn't mind using a seperate remote or buying an adapter for their universal remote).

And I say that as someone who will never buy a PS3 since I have a standalone player and don't have time to justfiy owning a second console.
 
Oh, I know.

I just bought the Samsung BDP1500 (w/ 8 Blu-Rays) for $150 from Amazon.

I meant saving $300 over buying a PS3 for $450.
 
[quote name='jer7583']

It can be looked at as you're losing out on a lot more opportunities by going with PS3 than you are losing out on by going with 360.[/quote]

Maybe a year and a half ago. I don't see how though. Both systems are virtually the same.
 
[quote name='zewone']Fact: You have to have a Live subscription to play a game on your Xbox 360.

Fact: You have to pay $50 a year for Xbox Live.[/quote]
Hardware failures, paying for P2P services, no built in WiFi, companies being forced to charge DLC...

The 360 may be cheaper for the initial cost, but overall the PS3 is cheaper.

I don't care. I have an enjoy both.
 
FACT: DLC is free on PSN.

FACT: You can only connect to the internet using wi-fi.

FACT: All 360s break.
----------------------------

Why did Starmask go on his X-Files rant in the quote from your sig? :lol:
 
FACT: P2P networking will disconnect you from the match 90% of the time, everytime.

FACT: 360's D-Pad will remove your thumbs upon contact.

FACT: Xbox 360s are only for poor people.

FACT: $200/300 is more expensive than $400/500.

FACT: Xbox publishers actually don't put their games on discs. They only contain programing that sniffs out and finds your credit card number, charges another $60 worth of Microsoft points, and spends them on unlock keys for your game.

FACT: Xbox Live subscriptions are only available through microsoft and always cost $50. The full amount of that $50 is funneled directly into Bill Gates' Infant Torturing centers.
 
[quote name='Blackout']Maybe a year and a half ago. I don't see how though. Both systems are virtually the same.[/QUOTE]

It all comes down to what exclusives you like more an if you need a blu ray player and want the PS3 as one.

For me I love Mass Effect, Gears of War, Halo etc. and the PS3 exclusives don't excite me enough. And I prefer a stand alone Blu Ray player for movie purposes (looks better in the home theater, universal remote works without adapter and can turn the player on etc.).

But their are plenty of good games on both systems. Just personal tastes dictate which has more exclusives that you like.
 
[quote name='naes']I give up. I'm clearly posting in a troll thread.[/QUOTE]

I think the problem is you're also overstating things. Most people don't need WiFi and can't just run a cable pretty easily--and it's more stable for online gaming. Live is only $35 online and many think it's well worth it for the added features, cross game invites, Netflix etc.

Both are good systems, they both have their quirks. But there's no right or wrong answer to which one is "better." That's subjective and comes down to each person and what they want out of their game console, what type of games they like etc.
 
[quote name='naes']I give up. I'm clearly posting in a troll thread.[/QUOTE]

No, just stop posting nonsense arguements. Nothing you've posted in this thread makes sense. They're just statements without anything to make them true. That's what we're pointing out.

Maul there's no right or wrong answer, but given that someone wanted to get into the HD era of gaming and just wanted to play games, which should be the baseline for this discussion, since these are essentially gaming machines, I think the 360 wins that every time. From there other mitigating factors are involved, but at it's base, the 360 is a better choice as a games machine.

Could anyone reasonably recommend the PS3? I think a lot of Sony fanbois would, but weighing the facts, the majority of people will go with 360 for games.
 
Fact: $400 was a great price for a console when it's called the "Xbox 360," but it's vastly overpriced when it's called the "Playstation 3."

Fact: You can't be a fanboy if you spend more time during the day bashing the PS3 than you do playing the fucking consoles you own and adore.

Fact: Blu-Ray players for $200-300 are reasonable; a full game console for $400 is just too goddamned much.

Fact: The playstation doesn't have any games.

Fact: Online games on XBL are flawless and always work.

Fact: The PS3 version of The Orange Box has sharp knees.

Fact: 30FPS Madden '08 versus 60FPS Madden '08 *is* a life or death matter.

Fact: The 360 gives great hugs.

Fact: So does the PS3; but unlike the 360, shows fingerprints. UNACCEPTABLE.

Fiction: this is fuckin' annoying.

EDIT: Fact: Temporaryscars' culinary claims are empirically valid.
 
[quote name='jer7583']No, just stop posting nonsense arguements. Nothing you've posted in this thread makes sense. They're just statements without anything to make them true. That's what we're pointing out.[/quote]
So, using paying for P2P is a bad argument? Hardware failures? No built in WiFi? Microsoft forcing companies to charge for DLC? Those are all bad arguments? You're simply twisting the arguments.
 
[quote name='jer7583']
Maul there's no right or wrong answer, but given that someone wanted to get into the HD era of gaming and just wanted to play games..

Could anyone reasonably recommend the PS3? I think a lot of Sony fanbois would, but weighing the facts, the majority of people will go with 360 for games.[/QUOTE]

If you like the Sony exclusives more, then sure. Someone may like Uncharted, Motorstorm, MGS4, LBP, Ratchet & Clank, Valkryia Chronicles, Gran Tourismo etc. better than Gears, Halo, Mass Effect et al.

Most good games are on both, so it just comes down to those few exclusives, Blu ray, Xbox live, the controllers and the price difference.
 
[quote name='naes']So, using paying for P2P is a bad argument? Hardware failures? No built in WiFi? Microsoft forcing companies to charge for DLC? Those are all bad arguments? You're simply twisting the arguments.[/QUOTE]

Their valid points. Just not 100% objective negatives (other than RROD). I don't need WiFi, my cable modem and router are at my TV. Xbox live is worth it, especially with Netflix functionality now.

Again, they both have their pros and cons--but it's largely 100% subjective and depends on what someone wants and what they're bothered by. Not some objective fact as fanboys and haters try to make them out to be.
 
Because the Playstation 3 cost $400 in 2005 as well, it's fully valid to compare the two. And to be fair, I don't have my 360 with me at the moment, and my Game Boy Micro's battery died. (I left the charger at home, oops) Myke always loves to take things to the extremes, as long as it makes him look right.

Paying for P2P is a bad arguement because there's advantages to both P2P and dedicated online play. Hardware failures is a beaten horse and has been mostly resolved by Microsoft for about a year now. No built in WiFi goes either way. I wouldn't use WiFi for online games anyway since wired is more stable. PSN charges for DLC the same as Xbox Live.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Their valid points. Just not 100% objective negatives (other than RROD). I don't need WiFi, my cable modem and router are at my TV. Xbox live is worth it, especially with Netflix functionality now.

Again, they both have their pros and cons--but it's largely 100% subjective and depends on what someone wants and what they're bothered by. Not some objective fact as fanboys and haters try to make them out to be.[/quote]
I completely understand why some people don't need WiFi (I personally don't like WiFi, I used a wired connection, however, who knows, I may need WiFi one day).

And XBL is probably worth it, but it still is a bit strange that you have to pay for a P2P service.

Like I said before, I don't really care, I own and enjoy both consoles.

[quote name='jer7583']PSN charges for DLC the same as Xbox Live.[/quote]
That's not my point. Microsoft forces the companies to charge for DLC that was intended to be free.
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']"Their" valid points?[/QUOTE]

Do you feel special now? Pointing out a homophone typo. :D

They're valid points. Feel better now? I know how to use them, I just type super fast and tend to fuck up they're, there, their, too, to etc. and not catch it since I seldom proof read posts. Guess I type faster than I think. :D
 
[quote name='jer7583']Because the Playstation 3 cost $400 in 2005 as well, it's fully valid to compare the two. And to be fair, I don't have my 360 with me at the moment, and my Game Boy Micro's battery died. (I left the charger at home, oops) Myke always loves to take things to the extremes, as long as it makes him look right.[/quote]

I do like to make points to be right. That is indeed true.

But you've been aping the "ZOMG PS3 IS LIKE A TRILLION DOLLARZ" for the *entire* pants-shitting two year existence of the console and then some. Even, might I add, when the PS3 was available for $400 and the 360 for $350. And you're accusing someone else of making arguments based upon convenience?

I've been very tempted to put you on ignore for a good bit now. But I have to admit, you're like an undervalued Mana Knight; always willing to overargue your absurd positions for hours on end, thriving on nothing resembling informed conversation and everything resembling gut feelings combined with an emotional affinity for one console over another. All the while in denial of being way too emotionally tied to your viewpoints.

That's why I can't put you on ignore; it's a waste of time and typing, sure. But, dammit, it's fun. I can damn near smell your blood pressure rising when you think of the PS3.

Paying for P2P is a bad arguement because there's advantages to both P2P and dedicated online play. Hardware failures is a beaten horse and has been mostly resolved by Microsoft for about a year now. No built in WiFi goes either way. I wouldn't use WiFi for online games anyway since wired is more stable. PSN charges for DLC the same as Xbox Live.
Click to expand...

More individual-based confirmatory bias from our good boy jer. I don't use the memory card readers in my PS3, so I sold the piece of shit system.
 
myke, I like how you think you're somehow above all of this when you're TMK without Assburger's.

I do this just to piss people off, what's your excuse?
 
the ps3 is in no trouble. it is a far superior product to the 360. my 360 broke down twice, i had my system hacked into and after all this i had to get rid of it. i have had no issues with my ps3. i finally realized what this compares to. it is like the american auto industry which consistenly puts out crap to try and make as much money as possible in a short amount of time (ie microsoft with the 360 which has a unhealthy malfunction record) and the japanese auto makers which makes far superior products that people can use for a long time without worry about it breaking down (ie the ps3). the ps3 costs a little more, but what is the cost of my 360 breaking down twice and me not being able to use it for 2 months?? just like the american auto maker this negligence will come back to haunt microsoft. if i could do it all over again i would gladly spend a hundred more dollars for a far superior product and not buy the 360 at all. as far as games are concerned the ps3 exclusives are just as strong if not stronger than the 360's (resistance, mgs 4, motorstorm, little big planet, socom, ratchet.. etc.)
the 360 has fable, left 4 dead, and halo....
 
I understand that Microsoft has resolved the issues behind their hardware failures, but there's still faulty hardware out there (I know it warrantied).

My brother's 360 red ringed last week or the week before, so even though it's a resolved issue, that doesn't mean its not affecting anyone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top