|
|
|
Xbox 360 and PS3 price cuts coming this fall
|
|
The following comments relate to this news article:
article published on 27 June, 2009
According to a "mole" speaking to Arstechnica, both Sony and Microsoft will introduce new hardware packages this fall, in addition to price cuts.
This is all considered rumor for the time being, but the "mole" has broken a lot of stories in the past that have eventually been absolutely correct so keep that in mind.
From Sony's end, across the board price cuts are coming as well as ... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
|
|
emugamer
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
29. June 2009 @ 21:58 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by chris4160:
To use blu-ray properly you need a several thousand dollar 1080p full hd tv, not many people have those.
No you don't. If you do your homework and wait for the right deal, you can get a 46" for not much more than $1,100. Of course if you walk into Best Buy saying something like "I want a 1080p full hd tv so that I can use blu ray properly and I have several thousand dollars to spend," you'll probably walk out with $3,000 less in your bank account.
Originally posted by chris4160:
Think of all the high selling upcoming and released games the 360 has and the ps3 doesn't: halo 1, halo 2, halo 3, halo wars, left 4 dead, fable, fable 2, gears of war 1, gears of war 2, halo 3 odst, left 4 dead 2.
I'll see your Halo 1, 2 and 3, and raise you a Mega Man 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 8 & 9. I'll also throw in a Metal Slug 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, & 6.
Originally posted by chris4160:
Yes xbox live may cost $40 for 12 months, but that money is spent on updating xbox live. PSN is simply no competition for xbox live.
That's $40 too much IMO.
Originally posted by chris4160:
I own a ps3, xbox 360 and a wii... the 360 is by far the better console.
Much respect if that's how you feel. I don't argue with people if they feel genuine about something. Just don't make ridiculous claims.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 29. June 2009 @ 22:03
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
Senior Member
4 product reviews
|
29. June 2009 @ 22:59 |
Link to this message
|
i got to break it to ya after updating my PC i find my XBOX collecting more dust than before, every once and awhile i'll play some Blue dragon Some Tales And some lost.
To me thumstiks and FPS's don't mix.
ill make a ridiculous claim too, PC is by far the best Gaming Machine.
|
|
lxhotboy
Senior Member
|
30. June 2009 @ 00:02 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Originally posted by lxhotboy:
Really i dont see any reason to buy a PS3 over the xbox360 gamer wise just depends on your exclusive gaming selection. Both consoles have a good lineup of games by now but you still spend a lot more on a PS3 in the long run and the games look 99.9% the same on both consoles so why pay more.
Contrary to popular belief, there are people that realize why the price is higher. It's because it has a blu ray player. Some of those people may shrug it off and not care, but others may see the the appeal of incorporating a HD movie player and game console into a single device. And how is the PS3 more expensive in the end? Are you comparing apples to apples? I hope you are not comparing the 360 arcade to the top tier PS3. Compare the Elite with the most expensive PS3, and whether you love it or hate it, you still have something more with the PS3 and you are not paying a subscription fee. In the end, you're taking a pretty big hit to your wallet for both consoles when you factor in peripherels that don't come with the console. How much you pay depends on your individual gaming habits.
Ok now lets see, "Am i comparing apples to apples?" Well i did state,"Really i dont see any reason to buy a PS3 over the xbox360 gamer wise just depends on your exclusive gaming selection." That part in red here lets you know i am comparing the consoles for those are in it for the games. That's why i stated GAMERWISE. Just wondering if you missed that. GAMERWISE would suggest that the presence of a blueray drive is probably irrelevant when being used for watching movies. Also it would suggest that i am comparing the lowest priced Xbox360 that will play the games to the lowest priced PS3 that allows us to play those games we love so much. So like i said if a person is in it GAMERWISE then one reason they may choose to pay more to get a PS3 than buying a xbox360 would be preference of exclusive titles. Such as all those games that ONER previously listed for us.
On the subject of PS3 and blueray players. You know a lot of devices are bundled like a tv and blueray player or dvd player and vhs player. Is that always a good thing? I do believe a person could buy a xbox360, enjoy games, and buy a blueray player for about the same price of a single PS3 console. HA HA... that means that i can watch a blueray movie in one room while my son plays games in another for the same price of a PS3 so bundling isnot always what its cracked up to be. That is one reason why it is not contrary to popular belief that more people think the PS3 need a price drop than do those who actually think it is worth all that money. Its kinda like buying a lamborghini specifically b/c they wanted a fast car and spending $300,000 and then someone pulls up to a light next to you in s $50,000 corvette. Why spend the extra money if your concern is only for speed. Actually the corvette would beat the lamborghini but i am not saying either console is better than the other it all comes down to preference as you indeed do have to factor in any purchase of peripherials as you stated. I myself am pleased with my xbycatox360 and again just sitting back waiting on sony to drop the price on the PS3 so this gamer can enjoy some great exclusives on the PS3. One of my favorite games is Hotshots golf and Microsoft tried to rip this game off on xboxlive but fell way short of the addicting fun that Hotshots golf has passed down over the years.
One love for all the gaming consoles if you are about playing great games b/c no one console will have them all. Signing off......lxhotboy...a gamer who enjoyed tandy, atari and colecovision and still goes back to play my NES classics. LOL
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 30. June 2009 @ 00:50
|
Senior Member
4 product reviews
|
30. June 2009 @ 00:50 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Quote:
Originally posted by lxhotboy:
Really i dont see any reason to buy a PS3 over the xbox360 gamer wise just depends on your exclusive gaming selection. Both consoles have a good lineup of games by now but you still spend a lot more on a PS3 in the long run and the games look 99.9% the same on both consoles so why pay more.
Contrary to popular belief, there are people that realize why the price is higher. It's because it has a blu ray player. Some of those people may shrug it off and not care, but others may see the the appeal of incorporating a HD movie player and game console into a single device. And how is the PS3 more expensive in the end? Are you comparing apples to apples? I hope you are not comparing the 360 arcade to the top tier PS3. Compare the Elite with the most expensive PS3, and whether you love it or hate it, you still have something more with the PS3 and you are not paying a subscription fee. In the end, you're taking a pretty big hit to your wallet for both consoles when you factor in peripherels that don't come with the console. How much you pay depends on your individual gaming habits.
Ok now lets see, "Am i comparing apples to apples?" Well i did state,"Really i dont see any reason to buy a PS3 over the xbox360 gamer wise just depends on your exclusive gaming selection." That part in red here lets you know i am comparing the consoles for those are in it for the games. That's why i stated GAMERWISE. Just wondering if you missed that. GAMERWISE would suggest that the presence of a blueray drive is probably irrelevant when being used for watching movies. Also it would suggest that i am comparing the lowest priced Xbox360 that will play the games to the lowest priced PS3 that allows us to play those games we love so much. So like i said if a person is in it GAMERWISE then one reason they may choose to pay more to get a PS3 than buying a xbox360 would be preference of exclusive titles. Such as all those games that ONER previously listed for us.
Please go back and re-read my original post and try to interpret it again.
PS. On the subject of PS3 and blueray players. You know a lot of devices are bundled like a tv and blueray player or dvd player and vhs player. Is that always a good thing? I do believe a person could buy a xbox360, enjoy games, and buy a blueray player for about the same price of a single PS3 console. HA HA... that means that i can watch a blueray movie in one room while my son plays games in another for the same price of a PS3 so bundling isnot always what its cracked up to be.
while i hate bundling the same could be said about the 360. it boils down to perception is it a gaming device that can play DVD's or a dvd player that can play games.
the only difference is one uses blue-ray and one does not, Sony chose to use there flagship Blue-ray and MS chose to stick with there joint media DVD.
they both do the same thing store media to be used with an optical drive.
Advantages of DVD:
low Cost
widely available
Disadvantages:
Low Storage
Bad Compression Ratio.
almost non existent Security
Advantages of Blue-Ray:
High Storage Capacity
Good compression ratio
Reliable Security Features
Disadvantages:
High cost.
Low Market Impact.
The way i see it however is BD has got potential,
if this where released in the late 90s it would have been a developers dream, all the textures and storage capacity your little developer heart could want. but Corps are Pushy on devs they want Money, Not innovation or artwork.
And so that if falls into place and we must come to reality that we will never see 25GB of texture's 15GB of dialog's and 5GB of just plain bad ass weaponry even if its not real :(
|
|
lxhotboy
Senior Member
|
30. June 2009 @ 00:58 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
And so that if falls into place and we must come to reality that we will never see 25GB of texture's 15GB of dialog's and 5GB of just plain bad ass weaponry even if its not real :(
You know i feel you on that. But the truth be told it doesnot matter how much they are able to put onto a disc. It doesnot make a game better in the end. Just my opinion but Bioshock probably has one of the best story lines i have ever had a chance to experience on a game. I encouraged friends to play it and most of them were blown away with the storyline and how it was truely like playing a horror novel. I think instead of concentrating so much on how much a disc holds or how good the graphics are they should focus on coming up with new innovative ways to use what we already have available, making great quality games, and games with high replay values. I agree though blueray will eventually become the standard media of choice, the potential is there.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 30. June 2009 @ 01:02
|
Senior Member
4 product reviews
|
30. June 2009 @ 01:22 |
Link to this message
|
|
the Game Market is stagnate a great game in this time and age is like a golden needle in a haystack as if the silver needle wasn't hard enough to find.
Blue-ray can break that stagnation, if the BIG 5 would give there developers a longer leash.
A Developer is like any other Artist portraying there artistic talent on a digital canvas.
nobody rushed or set rules on Leonardo da Vinci's World renown Painting.
|
|
chris4160
Suspended permanently
|
30. June 2009 @ 02:08 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Quote:
And so that if falls into place and we must come to reality that we will never see 25GB of texture's 15GB of dialog's and 5GB of just plain bad ass weaponry even if its not real :(
You know i feel you on that. But the truth be told it doesnot matter how much they are able to put onto a disc. It doesnot make a game better in the end. Just my opinion but Bioshock probably has one of the best story lines i have ever had a chance to experience on a game. I encouraged friends to play it and most of them were blown away with the storyline and how it was truely like playing a horror novel. I think instead of concentrating so much on how much a disc holds or how good the graphics are they should focus on coming up with new innovative ways to use what we already have available, making great quality games, and games with high replay values. I agree though blueray will eventually become the standard media of choice, the potential is there.
Bioshock 2 is coming out soon, It'll be good to play as the strongest big daddy. Hopefully bioshock 2 is better than fallout 3.
|
|
chris4160
Suspended permanently
|
30. June 2009 @ 05:17 |
Link to this message
|
|
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 30. June 2009 @ 05:46
|
Moderator
16 product reviews
|
30. June 2009 @ 09:29 |
Link to this message
|
Way to go! Post OLD stuff with a minor handful of somewhat new stuff compared to my CURRENT and UPCOMING list. Nice...real nice, but whatever....Fact is Sony has about 5-6x the amount of inhouse exclusive devs over MS and about 2-3x MS & Nintendo combined. You can post all the old games you want but what matters is what is coming up and NO COMPANY can match Sony's lineup hands down....
Edit: I have to add that your exclusive wiki list shows 170 titles for the 360 yet the PS3 wiki shows 156...so MS had a year head start and only have 14 more titles to show for it? Actually I have to say Thanx for that link it helps me quite a bit.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 30. June 2009 @ 09:40
|
|
codemoe
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
30. June 2009 @ 13:26 |
Link to this message
|
I have all 3 consoles as well. Regardless of having to pay for xbox live (GOLD), I would much rather play online through xbox than through PSN. There just is no comparison.
I like the PS3 for quick internet access, to play movies and only for PS3 exclusive games (not too many right now). If a game is released on all platforms, then I tend to buy it for the 360. I like them all in there own way, but being a gamer first, I prefer the 360 controller & xbox experience more.
One final note, the only reason the xbox 360 has been out on the market longer than the ps3 is due to the ps3 continually failing to get off the starting blocks for almost a whole year. From the ps3 release date to the present, there really only a few great games for it (killzone 2, Resistance 1&2 & uncharted). I'm waiting patiently though.
|
Moderator
16 product reviews
|
30. June 2009 @ 13:57 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by codemoe:
One final note, the only reason the xbox 360 has been out on the market longer than the ps3 is due to the ps3 continually failing to get off the starting blocks for almost a whole year.
That's not correct information.
Quote:
Likewise, Microsoft?s strategy depended on beating its rivals to market. It couldn?t afford to stop and delay the launch in order to solve its quality problems, or so upper management believed. What Microsoft?s leaders didn?t realize was that getting to market first with a flawed machine would only win them a battle; and it risked the loss of the war.
Source 1
Quote:
MS was so focused on beating Sony this cycle that the 360 was rushed to market when all indications were that it had serious flaws. The design qual testing was insufficient and incomplete when the product was released to production.
Source 2
If you want a very good read look over this PDF for more.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 30. June 2009 @ 13:58
|
|
chris4160
Suspended permanently
|
30. June 2009 @ 20:58 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Oner:
Originally posted by codemoe:
One final note, the only reason the xbox 360 has been out on the market longer than the ps3 is due to the ps3 continually failing to get off the starting blocks for almost a whole year.
That's not correct information.
Quote:
Likewise, Microsoft’s strategy depended on beating its rivals to market. It couldn’t afford to stop and delay the launch in order to solve its quality problems, or so upper management believed. What Microsoft’s leaders didn’t realize was that getting to market first with a flawed machine would only win them a battle; and it risked the loss of the war.
Source 1
Quote:
MS was so focused on beating Sony this cycle that the 360 was rushed to market when all indications were that it had serious flaws. The design qual testing was insufficient and incomplete when the product was released to production.
Source 2
If you want a very good read look over this PDF for more.
Ummm, that doesn't say anything about how Sony had to delay there release... you just changed the subject. PS3 was due to be released in March, but it didn't come out until November and as late as March the following year in some countries. Now tell me how he is wrong. Personally, I believe ps should be kicking 360's ass, seeing though it had almost an extra year to prepare.
Xbox isn't the only console to have flaws, wii has a serious malfunction in some units memory. And ps also has a serious yellow ring of death, which is not covered by Sony. I would rather have an xbox 360 that got rrod (and covered by three year warranty) than a ps3 with no warranty and had to pay $300 to fix. Anyway ms fixed the design flaw that caused the 3 rrod, no units that were sold after december 08 have the problem... and you say I'm bringing up old news.
With the games, xbox has way better games than ps, anybody who has played halo 3 online would agree.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 30. June 2009 @ 21:10
|
|
Morreale
Senior Member
|
1. July 2009 @ 01:08 |
Link to this message
|
Only reason why you don't get a 3 year warrenty with a PS3 because it isn't expected to break lmao
Oh, and Halo 3 was the worst of the Halo series so if that's the best game...... No.
*\\\****//\\\***//\\\*****
**\\\**//**\\\*//**\\\*******
***\\\//****\\\ ****\\\****
|
|
chris4160
Suspended permanently
|
1. July 2009 @ 01:37 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Morreale:
Only reason why you don't get a 3 year warrenty with a PS3 because it isn't expected to break lmao
Oh, and Halo 3 was the worst of the Halo series so if that's the best game...... No.
It's like buying a new car: you have narrowed it down to two cars, they are basically the same appearance, horsepower, same safety rating, similar economy etc. Except one is far cheaper and comes with a full warranty because some of the older models malfunctioned (that is now fixed). The other car has no warranty, but still has a large possibility of breaking down (the cost to repair almost its entire value). I know which one I would be buying.
Who told you that... have you even played the halo series? Anybody that has played halo knows that halo 2 is the worst. Halo 3 reguarly has 200k+ people online at one time... that's probably more than the entire psn.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 1. July 2009 @ 01:47
|
|
Morreale
Senior Member
|
1. July 2009 @ 02:00 |
Link to this message
|
Who cares how many players a game has online. If the game is crap, its crap regardless.
Halo 1 was by far the best, Halo 2 I thought the online was actually more fun at the time, Halo 3 just didn't bring anything new to the table except for hype. I just don't think it was a good game to end the series with. My friends also feel the same way.
PS3 has never had "a large possibility of breaking down", if it does it's rare. I don't know anyone who has had a problem with their PS3s.
And wasn't there a news article recently here about PSN reaching 14 million active users?
*\\\****//\\\***//\\\*****
**\\\**//**\\\*//**\\\*******
***\\\//****\\\ ****\\\****
|
|
chris4160
Suspended permanently
|
1. July 2009 @ 02:17 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Morreale:
Who cares how many players a game has online. If the game is crap, its crap regardless.
Halo 1 was by far the best, Halo 2 I thought the online was actually more fun at the time, Halo 3 just didn't bring anything new to the table except for hype. I just don't think it was a good game to end the series with. My friends also feel the same way.
PS3 has never had "a large possibility of breaking down", if it does it's rare. I don't know anyone who has had a problem with their PS3s.
And wasn't there a news article recently here about PSN reaching 14 million active users?
Xbox live has well over 20 million users... and it costs money to make an account. I bet out of that 14 million only about 8 million actually play, and the rest are just people making more than one free account. And if you had of read my post properly you would of understood that I meant more online at that time, not total.
Yeah, halo 3 didn't bring anything new to the table, except scarabs, the flood, elites switching sides, new weapons... not anything at all. Oh, and I don't know what you don't understand about this, but 200k+ people wouldn't be playing a game if it was "crap".
|
Moderator
16 product reviews
|
1. July 2009 @ 09:01 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by chris4160:
Originally posted by Oner:
Originally posted by codemoe:
One final note, the only reason the xbox 360 has been out on the market longer than the ps3 is due to the ps3 continually failing to get off the starting blocks for almost a whole year.
That's not correct information.
Quote:
Likewise, Microsoft?s strategy depended on beating its rivals to market. It couldn?t afford to stop and delay the launch in order to solve its quality problems, or so upper management believed. What Microsoft?s leaders didn?t realize was that getting to market first with a flawed machine would only win them a battle; and it risked the loss of the war.
Source 1
Quote:
MS was so focused on beating Sony this cycle that the 360 was rushed to market when all indications were that it had serious flaws. The design qual testing was insufficient and incomplete when the product was released to production.
Source 2
If you want a very good read look over this PDF for more.
Ummm, that doesn't say anything about how Sony had to delay there release... you just changed the subject. PS3 was due to be released in March, but it didn't come out until November and as late as March the following year in some countries. Now tell me how he is wrong. Personally, I believe ps should be kicking 360's ass, seeing though it had almost an extra year to prepare.
Xbox isn't the only console to have flaws, wii has a serious malfunction in some units memory. And ps also has a serious yellow ring of death, which is not covered by Sony. I would rather have an xbox 360 that got rrod (and covered by three year warranty) than a ps3 with no warranty and had to pay $300 to fix. Anyway ms fixed the design flaw that caused the 3 rrod, no units that were sold after december 08 have the problem... and you say I'm bringing up old news.
With the games, xbox has way better games than ps, anybody who has played halo 3 online would agree.
The only person to change the subject and avoid other questions here is you, because I sure don't see a reply to your old "exclusive" game list anywhere...plus I was discussing the release of the 360 vs the PS3 with another member (remember there are more people on aD than just you and it's not very hard to have multiple conversations with people online). So while you give your opinion based informaiton, I'll stick with my facts, links & proof...I think industry professionals have a bit more credibility than you. Especially when you think the YLOD is not covered by Sony (when it is) or when you say it cost $300 dollars (it's only $150) to fix outside of the industry standard warranty of 1 year for most electronics (just like the Wii as well).
Originally posted by chris4160:
Originally posted by Morreale:
Only reason why you don't get a 3 year warrenty with a PS3 because it isn't expected to break lmao
Oh, and Halo 3 was the worst of the Halo series so if that's the best game...... No.
It's like buying a new car: you have narrowed it down to two cars, they are basically the same appearance, horsepower, same safety rating, similar economy etc. Except one is far cheaper and comes with a full warranty because some of the older models malfunctioned (that is now fixed). The other car has no warranty, but still has a large possibility of breaking down (the cost to repair almost its entire value). I know which one I would be buying.
Who told you that... have you even played the halo series? Anybody that has played halo knows that halo 2 is the worst. Halo 3 reguarly has 200k+ people online at one time... that's probably more than the entire psn.
The supposed car that you think has been "fixed" still has the same issue just covered up to make idiots believe it is something new, different or not the same problem (3 Red Lights is the same as 1 Red Light no matter how MS try to hide it, it's STILL a failure). I would rather have something that WORKS and doesn't NEED to rely on a warranty, because...well, it just WORKS. Plus no matter how you slice it, the Wii & PS3 failure rate is within or below industry standards while the 360 is ABSOLUTELY not. This is just fact, not opinion nor assumption as well.
As for your last sentence
Quote:
Halo 3 reguarly has 200k+ people online at one time... that's probably more than the entire psn.
If you honestly believe that then I (along with others) are really just wasting time trying to have a discussion because that's seriously a childish comment. It's not worth the aggravation nor hassle to get into an argument.
Originally posted by chris4160:
Originally posted by Morreale:
Who cares how many players a game has online. If the game is crap, its crap regardless.
Halo 1 was by far the best, Halo 2 I thought the online was actually more fun at the time, Halo 3 just didn't bring anything new to the table except for hype. I just don't think it was a good game to end the series with. My friends also feel the same way.
PS3 has never had "a large possibility of breaking down", if it does it's rare. I don't know anyone who has had a problem with their PS3s.
And wasn't there a news article recently here about PSN reaching 14 million active users?
Xbox live has well over 20 million users... and it costs money to make an account. I bet out of that 14 million only about 8 million actually play, and the rest are just people making more than one free account. And if you had of read my post properly you would of understood that I meant more online at that time, not total.
Yeah, halo 3 didn't bring anything new to the table, except scarabs, the flood, elites switching sides, new weapons... not anything at all. Oh, and I don't know what you don't understand about this, but 200k+ people wouldn't be playing a game if it was "crap".
Again your "betting only 8 Million play out of 14 Million" is not based on facts or truth but only opinion. Once again, I would rather take industry professionals information over some random poster on a forum ranting about Halo being the be all end all of FPS and games altogether it seems.
@ Morreale ~ I absolutely agree when you say "Who cares how many players a game has online. If the game is crap, its crap regardless." Killzone 2 is well within that comment along with WiiPlay (because good sales does not always equate to a quality title).
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 1. July 2009 @ 09:08
|
|
chris4160
Suspended permanently
|
1. July 2009 @ 20:58 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Oner:
Originally posted by chris4160:
Originally posted by Oner:
Originally posted by codemoe:
One final note, the only reason the xbox 360 has been out on the market longer than the ps3 is due to the ps3 continually failing to get off the starting blocks for almost a whole year.
That's not correct information.
Quote:
Likewise, Microsoft’s strategy depended on beating its rivals to market. It couldn’t afford to stop and delay the launch in order to solve its quality problems, or so upper management believed. What Microsoft’s leaders didn’t realize was that getting to market first with a flawed machine would only win them a battle; and it risked the loss of the war.
Source 1
Quote:
MS was so focused on beating Sony this cycle that the 360 was rushed to market when all indications were that it had serious flaws. The design qual testing was insufficient and incomplete when the product was released to production.
Source 2
If you want a very good read look over this PDF for more.
Ummm, that doesn't say anything about how Sony had to delay there release... you just changed the subject. PS3 was due to be released in March, but it didn't come out until November and as late as March the following year in some countries. Now tell me how he is wrong. Personally, I believe ps should be kicking 360's ass, seeing though it had almost an extra year to prepare.
Xbox isn't the only console to have flaws, wii has a serious malfunction in some units memory. And ps also has a serious yellow ring of death, which is not covered by Sony. I would rather have an xbox 360 that got rrod (and covered by three year warranty) than a ps3 with no warranty and had to pay $300 to fix. Anyway ms fixed the design flaw that caused the 3 rrod, no units that were sold after december 08 have the problem... and you say I'm bringing up old news.
With the games, xbox has way better games than ps, anybody who has played halo 3 online would agree.
The only person to change the subject and avoid other questions here is you, because I sure don't see a reply to your old "exclusive" game list anywhere...plus I was discussing the release of the 360 vs the PS3 with another member (remember there are more people on aD than just you and it's not very hard to have multiple conversations with people online). So while you give your opinion based informaiton, I'll stick with my facts, links & proof...I think industry professionals have a bit more credibility than you. Especially when you think the YLOD is not covered by Sony (when it is) or when you say it cost $300 dollars (it's only $150) to fix outside of the industry standard warranty of 1 year for most electronics (just like the Wii as well).
Originally posted by chris4160:
Originally posted by Morreale:
Only reason why you don't get a 3 year warrenty with a PS3 because it isn't expected to break lmao
Oh, and Halo 3 was the worst of the Halo series so if that's the best game...... No.
It's like buying a new car: you have narrowed it down to two cars, they are basically the same appearance, horsepower, same safety rating, similar economy etc. Except one is far cheaper and comes with a full warranty because some of the older models malfunctioned (that is now fixed). The other car has no warranty, but still has a large possibility of breaking down (the cost to repair almost its entire value). I know which one I would be buying.
Who told you that... have you even played the halo series? Anybody that has played halo knows that halo 2 is the worst. Halo 3 reguarly has 200k+ people online at one time... that's probably more than the entire psn.
The supposed car that you think has been "fixed" still has the same issue just covered up to make idiots believe it is something new, different or not the same problem (3 Red Lights is the same as 1 Red Light no matter how MS try to hide it, it's STILL a failure). I would rather have something that WORKS and doesn't NEED to rely on a warranty, because...well, it just WORKS. Plus no matter how you slice it, the Wii & PS3 failure rate is within or below industry standards while the 360 is ABSOLUTELY not. This is just fact, not opinion nor assumption as well.
As for your last sentence
Quote:
Halo 3 reguarly has 200k+ people online at one time... that's probably more than the entire psn.
If you honestly believe that then I (along with others) are really just wasting time trying to have a discussion because that's seriously a childish comment. It's not worth the aggravation nor hassle to get into an argument.
Originally posted by chris4160:
Originally posted by Morreale:
Who cares how many players a game has online. If the game is crap, its crap regardless.
Halo 1 was by far the best, Halo 2 I thought the online was actually more fun at the time, Halo 3 just didn't bring anything new to the table except for hype. I just don't think it was a good game to end the series with. My friends also feel the same way.
PS3 has never had "a large possibility of breaking down", if it does it's rare. I don't know anyone who has had a problem with their PS3s.
And wasn't there a news article recently here about PSN reaching 14 million active users?
Xbox live has well over 20 million users... and it costs money to make an account. I bet out of that 14 million only about 8 million actually play, and the rest are just people making more than one free account. And if you had of read my post properly you would of understood that I meant more online at that time, not total.
Yeah, halo 3 didn't bring anything new to the table, except scarabs, the flood, elites switching sides, new weapons... not anything at all. Oh, and I don't know what you don't understand about this, but 200k+ people wouldn't be playing a game if it was "crap".
Again your "betting only 8 Million play out of 14 Million" is not based on facts or truth but only opinion. Once again, I would rather take industry professionals information over some random poster on a forum ranting about Halo being the be all end all of FPS and games altogether it seems.
@ Morreale ~ I absolutely agree when you say "Who cares how many players a game has online. If the game is crap, its crap regardless." Killzone 2 is well within that comment along with WiiPlay (because good sales does not always equate to a quality title).
Okay, I don't know why don't understand this. MS released a new chipset called Jasper it eliminated the rrod completely. If you knew anything about the 360's design you would know that ms admitted the 3 rrod failure to be caused by a design flaw in the x-clamps... 99% of 3 rrod were caused by this.
That source 2 article was from Jan 2008, and you say I'm using old information. And I seriously doubt he works for ms, he claims to of invented the wii... to me that whole interview seems like a 13 y/o ps3 fanboy questioning himself. What industry professional (name one, don't link to an article questioning anonymous people) have you got information from?
This brings me back to the same question, morreale and oner, have you ever played xbox live? And have you played the halo series, left 4 dead (best horror game ever, rivalled only by bioshock, fear, RE), halo wars, gears of war?
Oh, and with the games "changing subject", I don't have time to argue with every loser, I have a life, I'm not on the computer 24/7. Btw, tell me why you think "That's not correct information"... you keep diverting the blame to me, atleast tell my why you are denying when ps3 wad scheduled to be released.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 1. July 2009 @ 21:07
|
|
Morreale
Senior Member
|
1. July 2009 @ 21:04 |
Link to this message
|
|
I have a Jasper 360 but I still don't trust it. That's 360's reputation. It's too late for M$ to change that image.
*\\\****//\\\***//\\\*****
**\\\**//**\\\*//**\\\*******
***\\\//****\\\ ****\\\****
|
|
chris4160
Suspended permanently
|
1. July 2009 @ 21:17 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Morreale:
I have a Jasper 360 but I still don't trust it. That's 360's reputation. It's too late for M$ to change that image.
That's why ms has a 3 year rrod warranty, because even though they know they won't fail, they're issuing peace of mind. It's no different from home insurrance, even though there's a small chance your house will burn down, you still pay thousands a year, just incase.
Wait until 2015 when the next gen consoles are released, you will see which consoles has sold the most, then try saying xbox 360 is a piece of junk.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 1. July 2009 @ 21:20
|
|
rvinkebob
Member
3 product reviews
|
1. July 2009 @ 21:52 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by chris4160:
"This brings me back to the same question, morreale and oner, have you ever played xbox live? And have you played the halo series, left 4 dead (best horror game ever, rivalled only by bioshock, fear, RE), halo wars, gears of war?"
Usually when I post in a topic, everyone seems to cease posting. Don't know if I'm saying something to shut everyone up but I couldn't help but argue against your point.
Halo 1 was the ONLY good game out of the series. Play Halo 2, clunky, dumbed down, made for morons version. Played Halo 3, slightly improves on the disaster that was Halo 2 but still clunky and no where near as fun as the first. Halo Wars in an RTS. I'm not a fan, but seeing as it was made by Ensemble Studios (Age of Empires series) it might be good... on the PC.
L4D shouldn't have even come out on consoles. It should have stayed a PC exclusive as that's where all of Valve's games belong. I couldn't see myself playing any of the Half-Life's on anything but a PC.
Gears of War... wow, what a generic and buggy game. Buggy on the PC only, but that doesn't stop the game from being a generic and boring shooter. Right, and out of all the games you mentioned, only four of them are exclusive to the 360. That's just Halo 3, Halo Wars, Gears of War 2, and Fable 2. The rest are on the PC or elsewhere.
PC+PS3=Perfect gaming combo. There really is no need for a 360 if you've got that sort of set up. Plus, I'd rather not dangle with the hardware failure of the 360. YLOD my a**, out of the eight people I know with PS3's, none of them have had a single problem with their system. Two people I know have had their console's since launch day. It's also only $150 for repair, not your over exaggerated "estimate" of $300. So, you gonna try and convert me to the all holy "360 faith"?
|
|
lxhotboy
Senior Member
|
1. July 2009 @ 22:08 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Morreale:
I have a Jasper 360 but I still don't trust it. That's 360's reputation. It's too late for M$ to change that image.
I agree with you on not trusting the consoles as it is a thought in the back of my mind at times but knock on wood mine is still going strong heading into a 3rd year. Honestly i was think exactly the same thought when Sony said the PS3 was so much more powerful than the xbox360. Sony has a reputation to stretch the truth when talking about what their console is capable of. I am not ruling out they may be right but their is no game that graphically couldnot be reproduced on the Xbox360. Microsoft has said they have some titles TBR that rival or even beat Metal Gear Solid and any other game produced to date on the PS3. So as of now neither console has proven to be the more powerful of the two. I am not saying PS3 wont be in the end though.
Quote:
@ Morreale ~ I absolutely agree when you say "Who cares how many players a game has online. If the game is crap, its crap regardless." Killzone 2 is well within that comment along with WiiPlay (because good sales does not always equate to a quality title).
I am not speaking on the number or players playing online but if a game has great reviews from every website, and magazine article i have read and the rating for a game like Killzone 2 is consistent wherever you look, and with almost every single person who has played it, I would hardly call it crap. I myself have never even played Killzone 1 or 2 nor do i own a PS3 but if i had to bet my money that if approximately 90% of the gamers say its awesome then i am sure it is at least worth checking out. That is just logical reasoning. I have never played Halo 2 or 3 either and i doubt it is crap either. The game may not be your cup of tea and i think you guys are running off a little with all the criticism of some pretty solid games not to mention Killzone 2 was the first game that came to your mind when you made your list ONER so is it really that bad that is was on your mind. I bought GTA for xbox360 and sold it after a 2 weeks of playing just b/c i was burned out after San Andreas but that doesnot make the game crap. Everyone has their opinions but... oh well ....all i am saying is at least try to keep an open mind.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 1. July 2009 @ 22:11
|
|
chris4160
Suspended permanently
|
1. July 2009 @ 22:15 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by rvinkebob:
Originally posted by chris4160:
"This brings me back to the same question, morreale and oner, have you ever played xbox live? And have you played the halo series, left 4 dead (best horror game ever, rivalled only by bioshock, fear, RE), halo wars, gears of war?"
Usually when I post in a topic, everyone seems to cease posting. Don't know if I'm saying something to shut everyone up but I couldn't help but argue against your point.
Halo 1 was the ONLY good game out of the series. Play Halo 2, clunky, dumbed down, made for morons version. Played Halo 3, slightly improves on the disaster that was Halo 2 but still clunky and no where near as fun as the first. Halo Wars in an RTS. I'm not a fan, but seeing as it was made by Ensemble Studios (Age of Empires series) it might be good... on the PC.
L4D shouldn't have even come out on consoles. It should have stayed a PC exclusive as that's where all of Valve's games belong. I couldn't see myself playing any of the Half-Life's on anything but a PC.
Gears of War... wow, what a generic and buggy game. Buggy on the PC only, but that doesn't stop the game from being a generic and boring shooter. Right, and out of all the games you mentioned, only four of them are exclusive to the 360. That's just Halo 3, Halo Wars, Gears of War 2, and Fable 2. The rest are on the PC or elsewhere.
PC+PS3=Perfect gaming combo. There really is no need for a 360 if you've got that sort of set up. Plus, I'd rather not dangle with the hardware failure of the 360. YLOD my a**, out of the eight people I know with PS3's, none of them have had a single problem with their system. Two people I know have had their console's since launch day. It's also only $150 for repair, not your over exaggerated "estimate" of $300. So, you gonna try and convert me to the all holy "360 faith"?
Again, you have never played most of those games on 360, you're comparing pc to 360. The halo series were all made for 360 (except for ce). You're diverting from the fact that ps3 doesn't have any of those games... who cares if pc has them, last time I checked most pc's run on ms software, not sony. It is PC+360=Perfect combo gaming combo. Btw, tell me how halo 3 is clunky. L4D is a console exclusive, ps doesn't have it, sony doesn't own pc, so why did you even mention pc in a console discussion?
Basically what you're saying is two devices (not made by the same company) are better than one. One may be shit, but the other one is a $2000 machine 35 years in the making... you're depicting them being bundled together.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 1. July 2009 @ 22:23
|
|
lxhotboy
Senior Member
|
1. July 2009 @ 22:42 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
PC+PS3=Perfect gaming combo. There really is no need for a 360 if you've got that sort of set up. Plus, I'd rather not dangle with the hardware failure of the 360. YLOD my a**, out of the eight people I know with PS3's, none of them have had a single problem with their system. Two people I know have had their console's since launch day. It's also only $150 for repair, not your over exaggerated "estimate" of $300. So, you gonna try and convert me to the all holy "360 faith"?
Well PS3 + PC can also be equal to the two least played gaming consoles(FACT) and not to mention PS3 still carries the lowest game to console attach rate. LOL i dont know what the next guy is preaching but i will try to convert you to play any game that is fun regardless of what console it is on. I do also remeber reading that a lot of games may not be release on PC in the future on will only be available for the Xbox360 so you may be selling youself short if you keep that mindset b/c PC piracy is really becoming a big issue.
http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/56285
Now if you want to be loyal to any of these consoles. PS3, Xbox360 or PC(even though it is not a gaming console)that is your right to sell yourself short on a gaming experience. I dont discriminate with any of them, all have Pros and Cons and i will enjoy them all when PS3 lowers their price.
Becoming a PS3 gamer $399. Experiencing the Wii $249. Enjoying xbox360 $199 Being in this for the games...................Priceless
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 2. July 2009 @ 00:17
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Senior Member
4 product reviews
|
1. July 2009 @ 23:17 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by lxhotboy:
Quote:
PC+PS3=Perfect gaming combo. There really is no need for a 360 if you've got that sort of set up. Plus, I'd rather not dangle with the hardware failure of the 360. YLOD my a**, out of the eight people I know with PS3's, none of them have had a single problem with their system. Two people I know have had their console's since launch day. It's also only $150 for repair, not your over exaggerated "estimate" of $300. So, you gonna try and convert me to the all holy "360 faith"?
LOL i dont know what the next guy is preaching but i will try to convert you to play any game that is fun regardless of what console it is on. I do also remeber reading that a lot of games may not be release on PC in the future on will only be available for the Xbox360 so you may be selling youself short if you keep that mindset b/c PC piracy is really becoming a big issue.
http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/56285
Now if you want to be loyal to any of these consoles. PS3, Xbox360 or PC(even though it is not a gaming console)that is your right to sell yourself short on a gaming experience. I dont discriminate with any of them, all have Pros and Cons and i will enjoy them all when PS3 lowers their price.
Becoming a PS3 gamer $399. Experiencing the Wii $249. Enjoying xbox360 $199 Being in this for the games...................Priceless
piracy is just as big if not bigger on The 360, given with the wits
you can have a free online game and play on secure servers. you cant do that on a PC.
|
|
