Michaellvortega
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 30 (100%)
Trolling in 2007 is looking as stong as evar!
Dang Gum! Mizzari Has The New Nintendo Playstation!
- Thread starter TheSmokingPun
- Start date
Kayden
Banned
[quote name='Michaellvortega']Trolling in 2007 is looking as stong as evar![/quote]
Indeed, all that momentum they build up in the last quarter of '06 could really serve them well this year. They wrapped up on a high note and just kept going. I'm expecting big things from this team, not least of which would be mass bannings.
Indeed, all that momentum they build up in the last quarter of '06 could really serve them well this year. They wrapped up on a high note and just kept going. I'm expecting big things from this team, not least of which would be mass bannings.
[quote name='getmyrunon']And why is that? Because the truth hurts?[/quote]
Ok so let's go by it being the truth.
So you are saying Sony released a system that basically only people on the coasts can buy? Why? Because people in the midwest are to poor for it. Brilliant move by Sony. Of course that's only according to how you see things.
You are truly clueless if you think that people in the midwest can't afford a PS3. You are a word class moron if you think your statement is true.
I would also like to know why you think people in California have so much more money than people anywhere else? Yes they make more in avg. salary but that is because the cost of living is SO much higher. This kind of makes your point moot as them being able to afford a $600 system, while us in the Midwest can't.
Ok so let's go by it being the truth.
So you are saying Sony released a system that basically only people on the coasts can buy? Why? Because people in the midwest are to poor for it. Brilliant move by Sony. Of course that's only according to how you see things.
You are truly clueless if you think that people in the midwest can't afford a PS3. You are a word class moron if you think your statement is true.
I would also like to know why you think people in California have so much more money than people anywhere else? Yes they make more in avg. salary but that is because the cost of living is SO much higher. This kind of makes your point moot as them being able to afford a $600 system, while us in the Midwest can't.
[quote name='OzCatter']I'm an idiot for stating the obvious? Maybe you need to look at most of the people that own a huge DVD collection, they arent going to update anytime soon. Not everyone is electronic junkies like us.[/quote]
The people I know who own a huge, and I mean huge, DVD collection, used to own a huge VHS and Laserdisc collection.
I know they're salivating at the thought of owning a huge HD collection, be it BD or HDDVD.
The people I know who own a huge, and I mean huge, DVD collection, used to own a huge VHS and Laserdisc collection.
I know they're salivating at the thought of owning a huge HD collection, be it BD or HDDVD.
[quote name='dallow']The people I know who own a huge, and I mean huge, DVD collection, used to own a huge VHS and Laserdisc collection.
I know they're salivating at the thought of owning a huge HD collection, be it BD or HDDVD.[/quote]
Well of course there are going to be some people like that. I would venture to say that isn't the norm though. Most people don't even know the difference.
I know they're salivating at the thought of owning a huge HD collection, be it BD or HDDVD.[/quote]
Well of course there are going to be some people like that. I would venture to say that isn't the norm though. Most people don't even know the difference.
getmyrunon
CAGiversary!
[quote name='schuerm26']Ok so let's go by it being the truth.
So you are saying Sony released a system that basically only people on the coasts can buy? Why? Because people in the midwest are to poor for it. Brilliant move by Sony. Of course that's only according to how you see things.[/QUOTE]
That's not how I see things. That might be how a person with low reading comprehension skills thinks I see things, but it's not.
If you'll notice I used the % sign to indicate we were dealing with percentages, not absolutes.
The percentage of the USA population in Missouri is lower than the percentage of the USA population of California. FACT:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population
[quote name='schuerm26']
You are truly clueless if you think that people in the midwest can't afford a PS3? You are a word class moron if you think your statement is true.
[/QUOTE]
I NEVER made that statement, YOU JUST DID. Way to make a sweeping generalization there and put words in my mouth. I said the percentage of those who can afford one in Missouri is lower than the percentage of those in California. I'm guessing that out of that PS3 stack there were some sold, to those who could afford them. So since you made the statement, I guess you're a world class moron?
[quote name='schuerm26']
I would also like to know why you think people in California have so much more money than people anywhere else? Yes they make more in avg. salary but that is because the cost of living is SO much higher. This kind of makes your point moot as them being able to afford a $600 system, while us in the Midwest can't.[/QUOTE]
I never said "anywhere" I said MISSOURI, the location of the OP. And I think that because the median Californian makes 5k more than the median in Missouri. And those numbers are skewed down due to the large immigrant populations in California. FACT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States#Income_by_state
People who live in more expensive areas make more to compensate, and they also have more disposable income, which means they can afford more luxury goods.
If you can't understand why it's not surprising that PS3s are not selling as rapidly in a poorer area with a smaller population and less income as they are in wealthier ones with higher and wealthier populations, and how the relative populations factor into this as well, then you should probably head on back to the 8th grade.
So you are saying Sony released a system that basically only people on the coasts can buy? Why? Because people in the midwest are to poor for it. Brilliant move by Sony. Of course that's only according to how you see things.[/QUOTE]
That's not how I see things. That might be how a person with low reading comprehension skills thinks I see things, but it's not.
If you'll notice I used the % sign to indicate we were dealing with percentages, not absolutes.
The percentage of the USA population in Missouri is lower than the percentage of the USA population of California. FACT:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population
[quote name='schuerm26']
You are truly clueless if you think that people in the midwest can't afford a PS3? You are a word class moron if you think your statement is true.
[/QUOTE]
I NEVER made that statement, YOU JUST DID. Way to make a sweeping generalization there and put words in my mouth. I said the percentage of those who can afford one in Missouri is lower than the percentage of those in California. I'm guessing that out of that PS3 stack there were some sold, to those who could afford them. So since you made the statement, I guess you're a world class moron?
[quote name='schuerm26']
I would also like to know why you think people in California have so much more money than people anywhere else? Yes they make more in avg. salary but that is because the cost of living is SO much higher. This kind of makes your point moot as them being able to afford a $600 system, while us in the Midwest can't.[/QUOTE]
I never said "anywhere" I said MISSOURI, the location of the OP. And I think that because the median Californian makes 5k more than the median in Missouri. And those numbers are skewed down due to the large immigrant populations in California. FACT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States#Income_by_state
People who live in more expensive areas make more to compensate, and they also have more disposable income, which means they can afford more luxury goods.
If you can't understand why it's not surprising that PS3s are not selling as rapidly in a poorer area with a smaller population and less income as they are in wealthier ones with higher and wealthier populations, and how the relative populations factor into this as well, then you should probably head on back to the 8th grade.
[quote name='getmyrunon']That's not how I see things. That might be how a person with low reading comprehension skills thinks I see things, but it's not.
If you'll notice I used the % sign to indicate we were dealing with percentages, not absolutes.
The percentage of the USA population in Missouri is lower than the percentage of the USA population of California. FACT:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population
I NEVER made that statement, YOU JUST DID. Way to make a sweeping generalization there and put words in my mouth. I said the percentage of those who can afford one in Missouri is lower than the percentage of those in California. I'm guessing that out of that PS3 stack there were some sold, to those who could afford them. So since you made the statement, I guess you're a world class moron?
I never said "anywhere" I said MISSOURI, the location of the OP. And I think that because the median Californian makes 5k more than the median in Missouri. And those numbers are skewed down due to the large immigrant populations in California. FACT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States#Income_by_state
People who live in more expensive areas make more to compensate, and they also have more disposable income, which means they can afford more luxury goods.
If you can't understand why it's not surprising that PS3s are not selling as rapidly in a poorer area with a smaller population and less income as they are in wealthier ones with higher and wealthier populations, and how the relative populations factor into this as well, then you should probably head on back to the 8th grade.[/quote]
You are a Grade A Moron. Just because someone in California MAKES more money doesn't mean he has more of it when you compare in the costs of actually living out there.
Salary in Los Angeles-Long Beach CA: $50,000
Comparable salary in Kansas City MO-KS: $31,229.16
If you move from Los Angeles-Long Beach CA to Kansas City MO-KS...
Groceries will cost:23.187%less
Housing will cost:63.689%less
Utilities will cost:23.776%less
Transportation will cost:12.926%less
Healthcare will cost:16.108%less
You are acting as if KC Missouri is the ghetto where people can barely afford to house themselves. The suburbs around Kansas City are in most cases very well off. . Your whole argument is completely ludicrous.
Overland Park Kansas (west of KC while Blue Springs is East of KC)
Median family income
(per year)$89,792
Purchasing Power $86,422
Independence MO (right next to Blue Springs
Median Family Income $50,538
Purchasing Power $59,950
Simi Valley, CA
Median Family Income 85,175
Purchasing Power 50,459
Now you tell me who's better off and more able to buy a PS3? Blue Springs workers might not make as much but their dollar goes a hell of a lot further. As I stated, just because you make more money doesn't mean you have more. Now who needs to go back to 8th grade?
If you'll notice I used the % sign to indicate we were dealing with percentages, not absolutes.
The percentage of the USA population in Missouri is lower than the percentage of the USA population of California. FACT:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population
I NEVER made that statement, YOU JUST DID. Way to make a sweeping generalization there and put words in my mouth. I said the percentage of those who can afford one in Missouri is lower than the percentage of those in California. I'm guessing that out of that PS3 stack there were some sold, to those who could afford them. So since you made the statement, I guess you're a world class moron?
I never said "anywhere" I said MISSOURI, the location of the OP. And I think that because the median Californian makes 5k more than the median in Missouri. And those numbers are skewed down due to the large immigrant populations in California. FACT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States#Income_by_state
People who live in more expensive areas make more to compensate, and they also have more disposable income, which means they can afford more luxury goods.
If you can't understand why it's not surprising that PS3s are not selling as rapidly in a poorer area with a smaller population and less income as they are in wealthier ones with higher and wealthier populations, and how the relative populations factor into this as well, then you should probably head on back to the 8th grade.[/quote]
You are a Grade A Moron. Just because someone in California MAKES more money doesn't mean he has more of it when you compare in the costs of actually living out there.
Salary in Los Angeles-Long Beach CA: $50,000
Comparable salary in Kansas City MO-KS: $31,229.16
If you move from Los Angeles-Long Beach CA to Kansas City MO-KS...
Groceries will cost:23.187%less
Housing will cost:63.689%less
Utilities will cost:23.776%less
Transportation will cost:12.926%less
Healthcare will cost:16.108%less
You are acting as if KC Missouri is the ghetto where people can barely afford to house themselves. The suburbs around Kansas City are in most cases very well off. . Your whole argument is completely ludicrous.
Overland Park Kansas (west of KC while Blue Springs is East of KC)
Median family income
(per year)$89,792
Purchasing Power $86,422
Independence MO (right next to Blue Springs
Median Family Income $50,538
Purchasing Power $59,950
Simi Valley, CA
Median Family Income 85,175
Purchasing Power 50,459
Now you tell me who's better off and more able to buy a PS3? Blue Springs workers might not make as much but their dollar goes a hell of a lot further. As I stated, just because you make more money doesn't mean you have more. Now who needs to go back to 8th grade?
D
Dick Tracy
Guest
[quote name='schuerm26']That isn't even close to the logic I was using nor even close to what i posted. What I said is, if you will read other posts around this site, you will see that it ISN'T only this 1 store that the OP posted about. PS3's are readily available wherever you go at many stores, NOT just at the one originally posted.
If you are going to make a post at least try to understand what other people are saying first. Thanks.[/QUOTE]
Then what's your point, aside from rewording "The sky is blue"?
You were correcting / elaborating my post, and others like it, saying that there are other stores with PS3s.
So:
Oh, ok.
If you are going to make a post at least try to understand what other people are saying first. Thanks.[/QUOTE]
Then what's your point, aside from rewording "The sky is blue"?
You were correcting / elaborating my post, and others like it, saying that there are other stores with PS3s.
So:
Oh, ok.
k
getmyrunon
CAGiversary!
[quote name='schuerm26']Now who needs to go back to 8th grade?[/QUOTE]
Still you. When did I ever bring up individual cities? It's impossible to factor those into the equation. I have (from the start) explained how the lower population count / lower median income value in Missouri OVERALL as compared to California OVERALL means that a stack of PS3s in one random location in Missouri really has absolutely nothing to do with Sony sales.
There are more people in California than there are in Missouri. (I have said this all along).
These people make more (on average) than those in Missouri. (I have said this all along).
More money, more people = more likely things are sold out in CA then they are in Missouri. (I have said this all along).
Therefore a stack of PS3s to the ceiling in Missouri is not as impressive and/or alarming as the OP would like it be, for the reasons mentioned above. This is the point that I've been trying to impress this whole thread. You said it was stupid, and now you're namecalling, altering my argument and grasping at straws (random city to city comparisons -- LOL) in an attempt to explain why what I have said is so stupid. It's not working, you're embarassing yourself, and I'm done posting in this troll thread.
Still you. When did I ever bring up individual cities? It's impossible to factor those into the equation. I have (from the start) explained how the lower population count / lower median income value in Missouri OVERALL as compared to California OVERALL means that a stack of PS3s in one random location in Missouri really has absolutely nothing to do with Sony sales.
There are more people in California than there are in Missouri. (I have said this all along).
These people make more (on average) than those in Missouri. (I have said this all along).
More money, more people = more likely things are sold out in CA then they are in Missouri. (I have said this all along).
Therefore a stack of PS3s to the ceiling in Missouri is not as impressive and/or alarming as the OP would like it be, for the reasons mentioned above. This is the point that I've been trying to impress this whole thread. You said it was stupid, and now you're namecalling, altering my argument and grasping at straws (random city to city comparisons -- LOL) in an attempt to explain why what I have said is so stupid. It's not working, you're embarassing yourself, and I'm done posting in this troll thread.
addicted2games
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 11 (100%)
haha, this was a funny thread to read. 
PS3's are just about everywhere in CT. I saw about 8 to 10 at target a few minutes ago....
That doesn't mean its lost the console war but, It's steam has slowed down drastically but, If you are a gamer then buy all means pick up the system and enjoy....Sony isn't going anywhere. Just like Nintendo They're in it for the long haul.
That doesn't mean its lost the console war but, It's steam has slowed down drastically but, If you are a gamer then buy all means pick up the system and enjoy....Sony isn't going anywhere. Just like Nintendo They're in it for the long haul.
V
Virtua
Guest
deny it all you want, but this is a common apperance. The PS3 just isn't selling like the 360 was last year, and the Wii is this year. It's not selling like the PS2 did in it's first christmas. It's not selling poorly, just much worse. The DS, Wii, 360, and PS2 far outsold the PS3 this season.
There's no way that this is a good thing. This is a very bad thing. I'm sure Sony will fix it somehow, but the demand for their system is not there.
ing sick and tired both of these threads bragging about unsold PS3s in stores, and all the ing sony apologists trying to run damage control for sony. Grow up, everybody!
There's no way that this is a good thing. This is a very bad thing. I'm sure Sony will fix it somehow, but the demand for their system is not there.
ing sick and tired both of these threads bragging about unsold PS3s in stores, and all the ing sony apologists trying to run damage control for sony. Grow up, everybody!
iliketoplay
CAG Veteran
[quote name='jer7583']deny it all you want, but this is a common apperance. The PS3 just isn't selling like the 360 was last year, and the Wii is this year. It's not selling like the PS2 did in it's first christmas. It's not selling poorly, just much worse. The DS, Wii, 360, and PS2 far outsold the PS3 this season. [/quote]
Do you honestly expect a $250 console to sell as much as a $600 one? It's impossible to say if the PS3 is doing well RELATIVE to competition because we've never seen a console this expensive released before.
That being said, I think Sony may have f*cked up and released something that was too expensive/too early. Can they rally back?
Do you honestly expect a $250 console to sell as much as a $600 one? It's impossible to say if the PS3 is doing well RELATIVE to competition because we've never seen a console this expensive released before.
That being said, I think Sony may have f*cked up and released something that was too expensive/too early. Can they rally back?
addicted2games
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 11 (100%)
[quote name='iliketoplay']Do you honestly expect a $250 console to sell as much as a $600 one? It's impossible to say if the PS3 is doing well RELATIVE to competition because we've never seen a console this expensive released before.
That being said, I think Sony may have f*cked up and released something that was too expensive/too early. Can they rally back?[/QUOTE]
Well, the most expensive system to be released in the US was the 3DO. It sold for $700 new. Of course, we see where that system ended up, early death. The piss poor games didnt help it either.
That being said, I think Sony may have f*cked up and released something that was too expensive/too early. Can they rally back?[/QUOTE]
Well, the most expensive system to be released in the US was the 3DO. It sold for $700 new. Of course, we see where that system ended up, early death. The piss poor games didnt help it either.
[quote name='getmyrunon']Still you. When did I ever bring up individual cities? It's impossible to factor those into the equation. I have (from the start) explained how the lower population count / lower median income value in Missouri OVERALL as compared to California OVERALL means that a stack of PS3s in one random location in Missouri really has absolutely nothing to do with Sony sales.
There are more people in California than there are in Missouri. (I have said this all along).
These people make more (on average) than those in Missouri. (I have said this all along).
More money, more people = more likely things are sold out in CA then they are in Missouri. (I have said this all along).
Therefore a stack of PS3s to the ceiling in Missouri is not as impressive and/or alarming as the OP would like it be, for the reasons mentioned above. This is the point that I've been trying to impress this whole thread. You said it was stupid, and now you're namecalling, altering my argument and grasping at straws (random city to city comparisons -- LOL) in an attempt to explain why what I have said is so stupid. It's not working, you're embarassing yourself, and I'm done posting in this troll thread.[/quote]
and the cost of living is quite a bit higher in CA, making how much more money they make there not quite as important. Now the fact that there are prolly a couple more people living in CA might make a small difference.
Either way, we've got 17 ps3's left in stock down here, no wii's, no ds's, a few gbasp's, and suprisingly, we're still sold out of (and still getting people asking for) ps2's.
so sony wins....with ps2s. ^_^ :lol:
There are more people in California than there are in Missouri. (I have said this all along).
These people make more (on average) than those in Missouri. (I have said this all along).
More money, more people = more likely things are sold out in CA then they are in Missouri. (I have said this all along).
Therefore a stack of PS3s to the ceiling in Missouri is not as impressive and/or alarming as the OP would like it be, for the reasons mentioned above. This is the point that I've been trying to impress this whole thread. You said it was stupid, and now you're namecalling, altering my argument and grasping at straws (random city to city comparisons -- LOL) in an attempt to explain why what I have said is so stupid. It's not working, you're embarassing yourself, and I'm done posting in this troll thread.[/quote]
and the cost of living is quite a bit higher in CA, making how much more money they make there not quite as important. Now the fact that there are prolly a couple more people living in CA might make a small difference.
Either way, we've got 17 ps3's left in stock down here, no wii's, no ds's, a few gbasp's, and suprisingly, we're still sold out of (and still getting people asking for) ps2's.
so sony wins....with ps2s. ^_^ :lol:
FLSHADOW74
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='getmyrunon']PS3 = $500-$600. % of people who can afford a $600 console in Missouri = low. Population in Missouri = low. % of people who can afford $600 console in California = high. Population in California = high.
.: your pictures = representative of an extremely small slice of the socioeconomic pie. But thanks for sharing.[/quote]
What a crock of B.S., per capita income Missouri is 32k and California is 37k.
So it's not about money jackhole. Now CA has a populous of about 36 Million
to MO's populous of 6 Million. So the demand in CA would be higher than MO
just based on populous. Maybe people just don't want to waste their money
on a POS system.
.: your pictures = representative of an extremely small slice of the socioeconomic pie. But thanks for sharing.[/quote]
What a crock of B.S., per capita income Missouri is 32k and California is 37k.
So it's not about money jackhole. Now CA has a populous of about 36 Million
to MO's populous of 6 Million. So the demand in CA would be higher than MO
just based on populous. Maybe people just don't want to waste their money
on a POS system.
CounterSeal
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 2 (100%)
If you hate the PS3 so much then get off the PS3 boards.
TheSmokingPun
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 3 (100%)
Blue Springs has an average of around $70,000 spending, plus there are a dozen former Chief players living here.
But to you Californians, the only reason the PS3 doesnt sell here is because we look like this
But to you Californians, the only reason the PS3 doesnt sell here is because we look like this
David85
Banned
[quote name='Richlough']Sorry but I have this to add , take it however .
Walmart in Monroe, MI .
No PS3's to be found there either .[/QUOTE]
So what's the point of the picture of the Xbox sold out because it was onsale?
And just because people see the PS3 isn't selling really equels their hatred for the system.
God back to your bubble of Sony not nig up.
Walmart in Monroe, MI .
No PS3's to be found there either .[/QUOTE]
So what's the point of the picture of the Xbox sold out because it was onsale?
And just because people see the PS3 isn't selling really equels their hatred for the system.
God back to your bubble of Sony not nig up.[quote name='OzCatter']Blue Springs has an average of around $70,000 spending, plus there are a dozen former Chief players living here.
But to you Californians, the only reason the PS3 doesnt sell here is because we look like this
[/quote]
So that's what trolls look like.
But to you Californians, the only reason the PS3 doesnt sell here is because we look like this
So that's what trolls look like.
TheSmokingPun
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 3 (100%)
[quote name='dallow']So that's what trolls look like.[/quote]
No, just stating the fate of the PS3.
Trust me, trolls arent members for almost 2 years
No, just stating the fate of the PS3.
Trust me, trolls arent members for almost 2 years
^ Now that doesn't even make any ing sense. You posted a picture of some douche hillbilly and said it is 'just stating the fate of the PS3.' My PS3 doesn't wear a hat or a red shirt even.
In my year or whatever it has been here, this thread ranks right up there in terms of pure silliness, stupidity, and I'll be damned if it isn't the wonkiest economics lesson I've ever been privy to.
ing sense. You posted a picture of some douche hillbilly and said it is 'just stating the fate of the PS3.' My PS3 doesn't wear a hat or a red shirt even. In my year or whatever it has been here, this thread ranks right up there in terms of pure silliness, stupidity, and I'll be damned if it isn't the wonkiest economics lesson I've ever been privy to.
TheSmokingPun
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 3 (100%)
The hillbilly was for what the Californias think us Missourians look like
V
Virtua
Guest
[quote name='iliketoplay']Do you honestly expect a $250 console to sell as much as a $600 one? It's impossible to say if the PS3 is doing well RELATIVE to competition because we've never seen a console this expensive released before.
That being said, I think Sony may have f*cked up and released something that was too expensive/too early. Can they rally back?[/QUOTE]
It's nobody's fault except Sony's that that machine costs $600. And it's nobody's fault except Nintendo's that the Wii costs $250. Business decisions are made, and consequences are felt.
You can't make an exception for PS3 because it costs more. It's selling less than other competing hardware, and being sold as an equal or even greater loss than those competitors. This would be a different story if Sony was making a few hundred on each PS3, that would make up for the lower sales numbers, but that isn't so. If Sony isn't concerned, they should be.
Less installed base leads to less exclusive titles leads to less reason to buy the system, leads to, guess what, the Wii60 generation. It's Nintendo and Microsoft's game from here out, people. You can cling to Sony all you want, but it is inevitable.
I'd like to see how the PS3 is doing in Japan. Last I heard DS/Wii/PS2 were dominating the software charts, same as always.
That being said, I think Sony may have f*cked up and released something that was too expensive/too early. Can they rally back?[/QUOTE]
It's nobody's fault except Sony's that that machine costs $600. And it's nobody's fault except Nintendo's that the Wii costs $250. Business decisions are made, and consequences are felt.
You can't make an exception for PS3 because it costs more. It's selling less than other competing hardware, and being sold as an equal or even greater loss than those competitors. This would be a different story if Sony was making a few hundred on each PS3, that would make up for the lower sales numbers, but that isn't so. If Sony isn't concerned, they should be.
Less installed base leads to less exclusive titles leads to less reason to buy the system, leads to, guess what, the Wii60 generation. It's Nintendo and Microsoft's game from here out, people. You can cling to Sony all you want, but it is inevitable.
I'd like to see how the PS3 is doing in Japan. Last I heard DS/Wii/PS2 were dominating the software charts, same as always.
White-Wolf
CAGiversary!
Sony *could* be in a bad spot. Successful game systems have had all kinds of launches with different outcomes of overall success.
they way i see it though, Sony has said and done alot stupid stuff rangeing from E3, to saying they define next gen, to saying rumble is old gen... ect ect ect... really seem and feel like the fox news of games, at least for the moment. That may change, but i think alot of people were offended when asked to pay 500 for a new system.
They have become the pre Sony Nintendo, and Nintendo learned from their mistakes and arrogance. Will Sony? Let’s hope so.
they way i see it though, Sony has said and done alot stupid stuff rangeing from E3, to saying they define next gen, to saying rumble is old gen... ect ect ect... really seem and feel like the fox news of games, at least for the moment. That may change, but i think alot of people were offended when asked to pay 500 for a new system.
They have become the pre Sony Nintendo, and Nintendo learned from their mistakes and arrogance. Will Sony? Let’s hope so.
sonderiaom
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 2 (100%)
As much as my stores' shelves reflect what you have in your picture, the thread title just goads people; stop.
Chitown021
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 17 (100%)
[quote name='jer7583']deny it all you want, but this is a common appearance. The PS3 just isn't selling like the 360 was last year, and the Wii is this year. It's not selling like the PS2 did in it's first Christmas. It's not selling poorly, just much worse. The DS, Wii, 360, and PS2 far outsold the PS3 this season.
There's no way that this is a good thing. This is a very bad thing. I'm sure Sony will fix it somehow, but the demand for their system is not there.
ing sick and tired both of these threads bragging about unsold PS3s in stores, and all the ing Sony apologists trying to run damage control for Sony. Grow up, everybody![/quote]
You can't just make a straight up comparison to the launch of the 360 or PS2 to that of the PS3. The only thing they all had in common is they were all released during the holiday season. Both the PS3 and Xbox 360 launched by themselves. They had no competition therefore it was easier to capture more of the gaming dollar. This year the PS3 comes out as the highest priced console and is going up against two other contenders, the 360 and the Wii.
The 360 offers a similar experience to that of the PS3 (high def graphics, on-line play, and high def movies) plus an established library of games. Just because you find PS3's in some stores across the country doesn't necessarily spell doom. At this point the jury is still out. At the moment IMO the Wii has the momentum but will it last? Nintendo has some serious questions such as will they be able to pull off on-line play? Will they get any 3rd party support (this KILLED the Cube).
And no I'm not a Sony fanboy just stating the facts. I am a fan of good games period no matter what platform They're on. I currently own a PS3, PS2, PSP, and DS.
There's no way that this is a good thing. This is a very bad thing. I'm sure Sony will fix it somehow, but the demand for their system is not there.
ing sick and tired both of these threads bragging about unsold PS3s in stores, and all the ing Sony apologists trying to run damage control for Sony. Grow up, everybody![/quote]You can't just make a straight up comparison to the launch of the 360 or PS2 to that of the PS3. The only thing they all had in common is they were all released during the holiday season. Both the PS3 and Xbox 360 launched by themselves. They had no competition therefore it was easier to capture more of the gaming dollar. This year the PS3 comes out as the highest priced console and is going up against two other contenders, the 360 and the Wii.
The 360 offers a similar experience to that of the PS3 (high def graphics, on-line play, and high def movies) plus an established library of games. Just because you find PS3's in some stores across the country doesn't necessarily spell doom. At this point the jury is still out. At the moment IMO the Wii has the momentum but will it last? Nintendo has some serious questions such as will they be able to pull off on-line play? Will they get any 3rd party support (this KILLED the Cube).
And no I'm not a Sony fanboy just stating the facts. I am a fan of good games period no matter what platform They're on. I currently own a PS3, PS2, PSP, and DS.
The Mana Knight
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 41 (100%)
There are people I know who want one, but still can't find one. It really depends upon your area though.
[quote name='Chitown021']You can't just make a straight up comparison to the launch of the 360 or PS2 to that of the PS3. The only thing they all had in common is they were all released during the holiday season. Both the PS3 and Xbox 360 launched by themselves. They had no competition therefore it was easier to capture more of the gaming dollar. This year the PS3 comes out as the highest priced console and is going up against two other contenders, the 360 and the Wii.
The 360 offers a similar experience to that of the PS3 (high def graphics, on-line play, and high def movies) plus an established library of games. Just because you find PS3's in some stores across the country doesn't necessarily spell doom. At this point the jury is still out. At the moment IMO the Wii has the momentum but will it last? Nintendo has some serious questions such as will they be able to pull off on-line play? Will they get any 3rd party support (this KILLED the Cube).
And no I'm not a Sony fanboy just stating the facts. I am a fan of good games period no matter what platform it's on. I currently own a PS3, PS2, PSP, and DS.[/QUOTE]Well said.
Xbox 360 was the first next generation console last year. If someone wanted a new console (with next gen graphics), that was their only choice. When PS2 came out, the only competition it had was Dreamcast, but Sega shot themselves in the foot with the Saturn, so no one cared and went with a PS2. When the Xbox and GC came out, they were selling, but they could be found on the shelves around the launch window (but Xbox and GC had to compete with the PS2, which was already out). If anyone remembers, the original Xbox before the first price cut, had very slow sales initially, but eventually caught up. I see the same happening to PS3, mostly because price cuts and more appealing games will greatly increase the userbase.
This thread is very lame, only trying to piss off Sony fans. Go troll somewhere else OP.
I'm getting sick of the PS3 hate. The people who start this are those who want a PS3, but cannot afford one, as it seems. I think the PS3 is awesome. Not perfect, but definitely doesn't deserve the hate.
[quote name='Chitown021']You can't just make a straight up comparison to the launch of the 360 or PS2 to that of the PS3. The only thing they all had in common is they were all released during the holiday season. Both the PS3 and Xbox 360 launched by themselves. They had no competition therefore it was easier to capture more of the gaming dollar. This year the PS3 comes out as the highest priced console and is going up against two other contenders, the 360 and the Wii.
The 360 offers a similar experience to that of the PS3 (high def graphics, on-line play, and high def movies) plus an established library of games. Just because you find PS3's in some stores across the country doesn't necessarily spell doom. At this point the jury is still out. At the moment IMO the Wii has the momentum but will it last? Nintendo has some serious questions such as will they be able to pull off on-line play? Will they get any 3rd party support (this KILLED the Cube).
And no I'm not a Sony fanboy just stating the facts. I am a fan of good games period no matter what platform it's on. I currently own a PS3, PS2, PSP, and DS.[/QUOTE]Well said.
Xbox 360 was the first next generation console last year. If someone wanted a new console (with next gen graphics), that was their only choice. When PS2 came out, the only competition it had was Dreamcast, but Sega shot themselves in the foot with the Saturn, so no one cared and went with a PS2. When the Xbox and GC came out, they were selling, but they could be found on the shelves around the launch window (but Xbox and GC had to compete with the PS2, which was already out). If anyone remembers, the original Xbox before the first price cut, had very slow sales initially, but eventually caught up. I see the same happening to PS3, mostly because price cuts and more appealing games will greatly increase the userbase.
This thread is very lame, only trying to piss off Sony fans. Go troll somewhere else OP.
I'm getting sick of the PS3 hate. The people who start this are those who want a PS3, but cannot afford one, as it seems. I think the PS3 is awesome. Not perfect, but definitely doesn't deserve the hate.
I AM WILLIAM H. MACY
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 12 (100%)
There are tons of PS3s at both my local BB and EB
V
Virtua
Guest
[quote name='Chitown021']You can't just make a straight up comparison to the launch of the 360 or PS2 to that of the PS3. The only thing they all had in common is they were all released during the holiday season. Both the PS3 and Xbox 360 launched by themselves. They had no competition therefore it was easier to capture more of the gaming dollar. This year the PS3 comes out as the highest priced console and is going up against two other contenders, the 360 and the Wii.
The 360 offers a similar experience to that of the PS3 (high def graphics, on-line play, and high def movies) plus an established library of games. Just because you find PS3's in some stores across the country doesn't necessarily spell doom. At this point the jury is still out. At the moment IMO the Wii has the momentum but will it last? Nintendo has some serious questions such as will they be able to pull off on-line play? Will they get any 3rd party support (this KILLED the Cube).
And no I'm not a Sony fanboy just stating the facts. I am a fan of good games period no matter what platform it's on. I currently own a PS3, PS2, PSP, and DS.[/QUOTE]
I think you can make a comparison. There's no reason to say, oh it's okay because there was all this competition, the price was higher, blah blah. None of these things were out of Sony's control. Sony chose to launch the system christmas 2006, it was no surprise that the Wii was launching days later. It was no surprise that the Wii undercut them by half on price. Sony chose to ignore these things, and you see what happens.
Why instead of saying, sony is doing poorly because.. we say, they're different. Sony has special circumstances. it's just not true.
How can it be okay for a system sold at a considerable loss to be outsold by more than triple by a system that is making it's competitor just as considerable of profits on each system? This is to say nothing of money made through software/accessory sales as a result of those hardware purchases.
Sony's positioning makes no sense. Higher price means less units sold. End of discussion. The part sony missed about that pricing/demand lesson is that if you're pricing something higher, you need to MAKE MONEY on each unit. Not lose it. I don't understand what Sony is doing this generation. But maybe thats why Kaz makes the big bucks and I just post on message boards.
The 360 offers a similar experience to that of the PS3 (high def graphics, on-line play, and high def movies) plus an established library of games. Just because you find PS3's in some stores across the country doesn't necessarily spell doom. At this point the jury is still out. At the moment IMO the Wii has the momentum but will it last? Nintendo has some serious questions such as will they be able to pull off on-line play? Will they get any 3rd party support (this KILLED the Cube).
And no I'm not a Sony fanboy just stating the facts. I am a fan of good games period no matter what platform it's on. I currently own a PS3, PS2, PSP, and DS.[/QUOTE]
I think you can make a comparison. There's no reason to say, oh it's okay because there was all this competition, the price was higher, blah blah. None of these things were out of Sony's control. Sony chose to launch the system christmas 2006, it was no surprise that the Wii was launching days later. It was no surprise that the Wii undercut them by half on price. Sony chose to ignore these things, and you see what happens.
Why instead of saying, sony is doing poorly because.. we say, they're different. Sony has special circumstances. it's just not true.
How can it be okay for a system sold at a considerable loss to be outsold by more than triple by a system that is making it's competitor just as considerable of profits on each system? This is to say nothing of money made through software/accessory sales as a result of those hardware purchases.
Sony's positioning makes no sense. Higher price means less units sold. End of discussion. The part sony missed about that pricing/demand lesson is that if you're pricing something higher, you need to MAKE MONEY on each unit. Not lose it. I don't understand what Sony is doing this generation. But maybe thats why Kaz makes the big bucks and I just post on message boards.
JohnnyDrama
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 16 (100%)
[quote name='forgrim']hahaha, i want a ps3, but now am sitting on waiting for the best deal instead of just trying to get one[/QUOTE]
Yeah, same here, it won't be the case though for the Wii, I'm trying to get one.
Yeah, same here, it won't be the case though for the Wii, I'm trying to get one.
[quote name='Richlough']Sorry but I have this to add , take it however .
Walmart in Monroe, MI .
No PS3's to be found there either .[/QUOTE]
[quote name='gizmogc']Apparently games as well since the case is empty[/QUOTE]
Oops , I forgot to say this was the 360 case . See the controller ?
All PS3 stuff seems to be on the endcap at Wal*Mart .
Walmart in Monroe, MI .
No PS3's to be found there either .[/QUOTE]
[quote name='gizmogc']Apparently games as well since the case is empty
[/QUOTE]Oops , I forgot to say this was the 360 case . See the controller ?
All PS3 stuff seems to be on the endcap at Wal*Mart .
Chitown021
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 17 (100%)
I haven't seen a one (PS3) sittin' in the glass cases at Wally World or Target yet so they must still be selling out in my area. But what do I know I'm just livin here in ol' backwoods Missouri. I don't gots none of that fancy learnin' you city slickers gots. I tried to gets me one of them fancy sexbox gamestation 3 thing-a-ma-jigs but we just coudndt affords it.We just likes to kick back wit a jug fula moonshine and wrasle in the mud anyhoo. We don't needs no fancy electronics to have us a good time YEEE HAW!!!!
Chitown021
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 17 (100%)
[quote name='jer7583']I think you can make a comparison. There's no reason to say, oh it's okay because there was all this competition, the price was higher, blah blah. None of these things were out of Sony's control. Sony chose to launch the system christmas 2006, it was no surprise that the Wii was launching days later. It was no surprise that the Wii undercut them by half on price. Sony chose to ignore these things, and you see what happens.
Why instead of saying, sony is doing poorly because.. we say, they're different. Sony has special circumstances. it's just not true.
How can it be okay for a system sold at a considerable loss to be outsold by more than triple by a system that is making it's competitor just as considerable of profits on each system? This is to say nothing of money made through software/accessory sales as a result of those hardware purchases.
Sony's positioning makes no sense. Higher price means less units sold. End of discussion. The part sony missed about that pricing/demand lesson is that if you're pricing something higher, you need to MAKE MONEY on each unit. Not lose it. I don't understand what Sony is doing this generation. But maybe thats why Kaz makes the big bucks and I just post on message boards.[/quote]
You completely missed the point of my post. I wasn't saying "Sony is the king and is kicking ass because..." or "Sony is getting owned and will fail because..." I was merely pointing out that nobody can see the future and we DON"T KNOW at this point how things are going. I'm not making excuses just stating facts. Bottom line THE JURY IS STILL OUT.
Why instead of saying, sony is doing poorly because.. we say, they're different. Sony has special circumstances. it's just not true.
How can it be okay for a system sold at a considerable loss to be outsold by more than triple by a system that is making it's competitor just as considerable of profits on each system? This is to say nothing of money made through software/accessory sales as a result of those hardware purchases.
Sony's positioning makes no sense. Higher price means less units sold. End of discussion. The part sony missed about that pricing/demand lesson is that if you're pricing something higher, you need to MAKE MONEY on each unit. Not lose it. I don't understand what Sony is doing this generation. But maybe thats why Kaz makes the big bucks and I just post on message boards.[/quote]
You completely missed the point of my post. I wasn't saying "Sony is the king and is kicking ass because..." or "Sony is getting owned and will fail because..." I was merely pointing out that nobody can see the future and we DON"T KNOW at this point how things are going. I'm not making excuses just stating facts. Bottom line THE JURY IS STILL OUT.
[quote name='jer7583']I think you can make a comparison. There's no reason to say, oh it's okay because there was all this competition, the price was higher, blah blah. None of these things were out of Sony's control. Sony chose to launch the system christmas 2006, it was no surprise that the Wii was launching days later. It was no surprise that the Wii undercut them by half on price. Sony chose to ignore these things, and you see what happens.
[/quote]
I agree with you that the pricing is Sony's doing (or to be more specific, the decision to include the Blu-ray drive standard was their doing) and if the PS3 should fail (something I don't expect) it will be the pricing that did it. But you can't argue that the launch's success or failure is entirely Sony's fault.
One thing that WAS out of Sony's control (at least their direct control) was the manufacturing problems they had. They had wanted the PS3 to launch in the early part of 2006, but it turned out that they launched at the same time as the Wii and *still* had all kinds of supply problems.
Given that they weren't able to ship a significant amount of units for the holiday buying season, I wonder if it might not have been a better idea to wait 6 months or so until they had some better games available and they weren't competing directly with another console that's half the price.
[/quote]
I agree with you that the pricing is Sony's doing (or to be more specific, the decision to include the Blu-ray drive standard was their doing) and if the PS3 should fail (something I don't expect) it will be the pricing that did it. But you can't argue that the launch's success or failure is entirely Sony's fault.
One thing that WAS out of Sony's control (at least their direct control) was the manufacturing problems they had. They had wanted the PS3 to launch in the early part of 2006, but it turned out that they launched at the same time as the Wii and *still* had all kinds of supply problems.
Given that they weren't able to ship a significant amount of units for the holiday buying season, I wonder if it might not have been a better idea to wait 6 months or so until they had some better games available and they weren't competing directly with another console that's half the price.
Any talk about the Wii outselling the PS3 is meaningless until both systems are available in sufficient numbers. At least until Christmas, both systems were basically selling out as fast as they could get in stock. If Nintendo sold 3 times as many units, it's because they had 3 times as many units to sell.
That's just silly. If more people want the expensive item, it will sell more. Do I really have to explain this? The PS2 always outsold the Gamecube, and it was always priced higher.
Sony is trying to use its clout in the gaming market to give Blu-ray a boost. That, combined with the fact that the money maker is game licensing and not the consoles themselves, is why they are willing to take such a big loss on each machine. Microsoft is also losing money on every Xbox 360, and lost money on every Xbox. I'm sure Sony now makes money on the PS2, but in general losing money on the hardware is the rule and not the exception. But I do think that they may have overestimated interest in hi-def movies, and the amount that the general public is willing to spend on a game console.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
Rather than start *yet another* ing thread, this seems like a good place to ask my question: there are two camps of people who are playing the "PS3 is dead" trumpet: those people who think Sony doesn't stand a chance to stay at the top this generation, and those who *want* Sony to lose this generation.
So, my question, directed at those people who think the OP here is an awesome dude who has all the right ideas: why do you want *any* company to fail? Why do you want Sony to fail this generation? What benefit will you get out of it?
I don't understand this cheerleading, unless it's just some schmucks who want to pretend they were trendsetters that rightly predicted the "next generation leader," even though they had nothing to do with the trend being set. I look at my PS2 collection, and I think of the games I wouldn't have had the chance to play if the PS2 failed. No Disgaea, Shadow of the Colossus, God of War, Devil May Cry, Metal Gear Solid, Final Fantasy X, X-2 and XII, and countless other RPGs, SRPGs, adventure titles and games I've never played. I think "well, if Sony failed, I'd have never played a majority of these titles. It's not a given that ANY of those games would have come out regardless (except for your super-franchises, like Final Fantasy), so nobody can feasibly claim "well, they would have been on GC of Xbox anyway," because that's just not true.
So, to those who desire the demise of Sony's gaming division, let me ask you this: what do you stand to gain, what do gamers stand to gain, if the PS3 is a major league failure?
ing thread, this seems like a good place to ask my question: there are two camps of people who are playing the "PS3 is dead" trumpet: those people who think Sony doesn't stand a chance to stay at the top this generation, and those who *want* Sony to lose this generation.So, my question, directed at those people who think the OP here is an awesome dude who has all the right ideas: why do you want *any* company to fail? Why do you want Sony to fail this generation? What benefit will you get out of it?
I don't understand this cheerleading, unless it's just some schmucks who want to pretend they were trendsetters that rightly predicted the "next generation leader," even though they had nothing to do with the trend being set. I look at my PS2 collection, and I think of the games I wouldn't have had the chance to play if the PS2 failed. No Disgaea, Shadow of the Colossus, God of War, Devil May Cry, Metal Gear Solid, Final Fantasy X, X-2 and XII, and countless other RPGs, SRPGs, adventure titles and games I've never played. I think "well, if Sony failed, I'd have never played a majority of these titles. It's not a given that ANY of those games would have come out regardless (except for your super-franchises, like Final Fantasy), so nobody can feasibly claim "well, they would have been on GC of Xbox anyway," because that's just not true.
So, to those who desire the demise of Sony's gaming division, let me ask you this: what do you stand to gain, what do gamers stand to gain, if the PS3 is a major league failure?
bread's done