Lets take a trip back to 2006

  • 170 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
#101 Posted by ermacness (7080 posts) -
@coasterguy65 said:

@tormentos said:

@coasterguy65 said:

@tormentos:

Damn dude are you still going on about AA batteries? No one cares, except you, and other PS fanboys. Everybody has AA batteries lying around, and most people have rechargeable ones. Tons of things around the house use them. It's not like MS went with 9V batteries or something.

I'll take being able to swap out fresh batteries in 10 seconds over sitting with my wireless DS4 plugged in for an hour to recharge it because the crappy internal rechargeable battery only lasts 5-6 hours any day.

Back on topic...The PS3 fell on it's face at launch, and didn't really recover until 2009 with a price drop, and the slim version. The only people who can't see this is blind fanboys.

The XBone is doing the same, but can easily recover with a price drop, and game support. It's far too early in the generation to claim any kind of victory for the PS4. Sure it's the more powerful console, but the PS3 was considerably more powerful than the Wii. Yet the Wii kicked it's ass by having games that appealed to the broader mass of people.

WTF...lol

Blind fanboy at its best. so because people some how have batteries is Ok to charge $25 dollars for crappy charge and play kit and not do what the others are doing put a freaking rechargeable battery that can be recharge by your own damn console a 4 duracell are like $10 dollars,man MS could have make one cheap for $3 and pack it in with a cable,instead they still went cheap battery but charge you $25 for it,is 2014 stop been an apologist for MS crap.

And the battery last more than 6 hours and what really hurting it is the light,in fact some people have disable the light by opening the controller and get 28 hours of battery life on a single charge...

The PS3 got a first price drop in 2007,and in places like Japan and mainland EU the PS3 outsold the xbox 360 even with a higher price,so is not quite the same for the xbox one to recover..

If they have batteries why do they need a $25 charge and play kit? Why is it that you assume that people who like the convenience of swapping out batteries in 10 seconds are somehow apologizing for MS? Like somehow in 2014 AA batteries are obsolete or something.

5-7 hours is about the norm, or are you saying mine, and my friend's DS4s are all defective? Actually why am I even arguing about this with you. Just do a Google search and there are tons of complaints about the short battery life on the DS4.

Yeah the first price drop was in 2007, but sales didn't really take off for the PS3 until after the 2009 price drop. The one spurred by Activision threatening to stop making games for the PS3 if the price wasn't dropped. Why did they threaten this? Because no one was buying the PS3, and Activision wasn't selling games on the console.

Why is it not quite the same for the XBone to recover? Do you really think that the PS4 is just outselling the XBone because of it's massive library of launch games...lol? We are 6 months into these two consoles lives. Trust me it wouldn't take much for the sales to tip the other way.

1. I have some AA batteries laying around, and I bought 2 play n charge kits for the X1. Depending on how much you play, AA batteries can get pretty expensive, and by the time you see how much you spent on AA batteries, you could've bought like 3-4 play n charge kits. By not including rechargeable batteries with the console (especially since it's the console that wear the highest price tag), that competing with other consoles that does offer it within the same class is ridiculous.

2. He's telling you the reasons why the DS4's battery life span is so short, in which he is correct. That's why Sony is giving us the option to control how bright you want the lightbar on the DS4 with the new update.

3. Depends on what country you're talking about. In the US, you're correct, but WW sales stat in 07 the ps3 outsold the 360.

4. I'm not saying that it's "impossible" for MS to turn this around, however, I think doing that will be just a bit more difficult than you may think. Remember that when the ps3 came out, it was in a "8 mill units sold" hole with the 360. When the X1 came out, it was in a "1 million unit sold" hole with the PS4. You see where I'm going with this?

#102 Posted by CrownKingArthur (4781 posts) -

giant enemy crab

#103 Edited by Riverwolf007 (23760 posts) -

it's hard to believe what a huge joke the ps3 was for literally years in sw.

how long was it before mgs 4 came out and the ps3 managed to get a game with a score above 8.

3 years?

then it was how lousy it ran multiplats and what a joke psn was and how they were stripping everything out of it to get to a price point people would buy it at and the whole rumble fiasco and how the sony executives were all batshit crazy with hype while the ps3 was garbage.

that era was nothing but laughs.

good thing sony learned their lesson and actually put effort into the ps4.

#104 Edited by Mr-Kutaragi (1962 posts) -

@tormentos said:

@darkangel115 said:

With all this system wars BS and going on now. and all the MS hate, I thought I'd take a flash back to the PS3 launch to put some things in perspective.

Back in 2006 the PS3 launched. it had an unfamiliar architecture with the cell, it had split RAM which sony admitted a few years later was a mistake and caused memory leak issue in larger games. It launched at 600 dollars more then the PS4 and Xbox one did recently and 200 dollars more then the 360 which came out a year earlier. It had in it a BD player, something that not everybody wanted. I mean HD TVs weren't even a standard back then nor was HDMI as it is today. So an extra 200 dollars for a "bundled in" blu ray? Sony's response was "get a 2nd job to afford it"

then you had this

http://www.techspot.com/news/21708-sony-to-make-it-illegal-to-sell-used-ps3-games.html

http://www.wired.com/2006/05/sony_to_block_u/

Sony was planning on blocking used game sales for the PS3 (DRM anyone?)

Then you had this

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/173540/gabe-newell-ps3-a-waste-of-everybodys-time/

a valve developer calling the PS3 a "waste of everybody's time"

and "I think it's really clear that Sony lost track of what customers and what developers wanted"."

PS3 didn't have or really support indies either at launch. Xbox did and launched XBLA.

The joke of the PS3 for the first 2-3 years was it has no games (remember these?)

I thought I'd point this out. especially to the younger folks here. I was a proud owner of a 360 at launch and a proud owner of a PS3 at launch. But nobody gave me crap for getting a PS3 funny enough. And now 8+ years later we all can look back and say the PS3 did just fine. It wound up having plenty of games. Some big exclusives that were highly rated and about equaled the 360 in sales give or take. And while sony isn't in the best terms financially it sure didn't bankrupt them and they sure didn't kill it off or let it die. So why all the xbox is doomed threads? By all means the xbox one is selling better then any console ever outside the PS4. this includes the wii, PS3, and 360 from last gen. Sure MS has done some dumb stuff along the way. But nowhere as bad as Sony did back with the PS3 launch. Can we not forget the promise of BC that was removed to save sony money on making PS3s? The 7 controller support that never happened? the last guardian?

or what about this

http://n4g.com/user/blogpost/m4ndat0ry_1nstall/516345

and this

http://www.wired.com/2013/02/sony-ps3-promises/

The main point was the PS3 launch was beyond a mess. So many lies, so many anti consumer things, too expensive due to BD disc, terrible architecture, no games and the list goes on yet, the PS3 wound up doing very well. So maybe a look back at history will show just how crazy some of the statements here are.

The PS3 worth was up to$1,400 if you actually wanted a Blu-ray player and xbox 360,blu-ray stand alone was $1,000 dollars,so basically sony sold people a Blu-ray player which by the way had the best image quality,and a next gen console all for $600 the PS3 was more than $800 dollars to manufacture,while been sold at $600,it was expensive but worth every damn dollar and then some..

Oh and Resistance scored 86% higher than any xbox one exclusive on Meta on launch.

The xbox one is weak and under power yet it cost more than the PS4,ad in fact in UK the xbox one was even more expensive on launch than the PS3,but didn't offer the value the PS3 had on 2006.

Your first link is bullsh** like it always happen on pre,launch in fact did you see sony delivering a patch on launch to eliminate the block on used games.?

No all the contrary Sony allowed owner to share PSN game with up to 5 people,he whole used games crap was based on a Patent awarded to sony on 2005 sound familiar.?

Yeah like it happen last year where people were claiming that sony would block used games based on a Patent,when it was MS who intended to block then and didn't own a patent on it.

http://www.itproportal.com/2005/11/09/ps3-to-block-used-games/

The one that talk about Final Fantasy is a joke is for Japan,on Japan used games were illegal,it wasn't like in US in fact you can trace this to older consoles than the PS1.

Yes that same gave newell make portal 2 on PS3 and call the PS3 version he best version,oh wait maybe it was because the PS3 version had co-op with the PC version something the xbox 360 version totally lack because of MS policies..

Supporting indies on PS3 would have been a nightmare,first the PS3 was expensive tech,and second it was hard as hell to the point where big houses like EA,Activision and other have problems making games imagine how much sadder it would have been for Indies,but mind you that it was sony who sparked indies on consoles with its net Yaroze on 1,a cheap PS1 dev kit,when MS wasn't even on the console market.

No lemmings claimed it had no games,and did so for way more than 3 years,before the PS3 was actually 1 year old already Uncharted was out,Warhawk as well as several other games.

Maybe you were not here,because sony was mock by the PS3 price for years,and sales here were a parade for 360 fans specially NPD which now some xbox fans like William Baker and sts106mat want to avoid like a plague...

Sony catch MS sales wise because MS never had a competent consoles outside US or UK,the rest of the world was PS3 all the way..

Backward compatibility was remove to lower cost,since i was a day 1 owned it didn't affect me,but some sacrifices had to be made,hell it wasn't like you could not buy a PS2 cheap when that happen sony still sold them.

There are games that support 7 players with 7 controllers,see this is what i hate about fanboys you claim to own something but you don't really know your console,lol...

Oh and the whole 7 controller was more of side effect of Bluetooth than anything else,sony just allowed them.

One of the games that support 7 controllers...

Are you using mandatory install against the PS3.? I guess you most have hate PC,because rather than partially installing the game,on PC all the game get install,and just from 1 disc,i remember my copy of UT 2004 on PC was 5 disc to install.

Oh but wait didn't the xbox 360 got HDD installs.? Yeah in some games is even mandatory..lol

Even that MS sold units without HDD...lol

So many lies yes so did MS,like all games will be 720p minimum with 4Xaa..

What anti consumer things the PS3 had.?

It had blu-ray which gave you 1080p movies for a fraction of the retail price.

It had free online play,

It had online browser which allowed you to even watch videos on sites like Hulu,

Didn't force you to buy batteries with a separate charger.,

Didn't charge you $100 for a 20GB HDD or $99 for a crappy ass wifi adapter that on PC was $19 dollars or less,nor sell you a dead format HD-DVD for $200 separate.

Yeah it was the PS3 the one anti consumer,what console blocked Netflix,hulu,internet explorer and all its apps under a pay wall.?

Who charged you for online play since 2002.?

Yeah the PS3 was anti consumer lol...

Poor sad lemming..

TLHBO

#105 Edited by darkangel115 (1687 posts) -

@Mr-Kutaragi said:

@tormentos said:

@darkangel115 said:

With all this system wars BS and going on now. and all the MS hate, I thought I'd take a flash back to the PS3 launch to put some things in perspective.

Back in 2006 the PS3 launched. it had an unfamiliar architecture with the cell, it had split RAM which sony admitted a few years later was a mistake and caused memory leak issue in larger games. It launched at 600 dollars more then the PS4 and Xbox one did recently and 200 dollars more then the 360 which came out a year earlier. It had in it a BD player, something that not everybody wanted. I mean HD TVs weren't even a standard back then nor was HDMI as it is today. So an extra 200 dollars for a "bundled in" blu ray? Sony's response was "get a 2nd job to afford it"

then you had this

http://www.techspot.com/news/21708-sony-to-make-it-illegal-to-sell-used-ps3-games.html

http://www.wired.com/2006/05/sony_to_block_u/

Sony was planning on blocking used game sales for the PS3 (DRM anyone?)

Then you had this

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/173540/gabe-newell-ps3-a-waste-of-everybodys-time/

a valve developer calling the PS3 a "waste of everybody's time"

and "I think it's really clear that Sony lost track of what customers and what developers wanted"."

PS3 didn't have or really support indies either at launch. Xbox did and launched XBLA.

The joke of the PS3 for the first 2-3 years was it has no games (remember these?)

I thought I'd point this out. especially to the younger folks here. I was a proud owner of a 360 at launch and a proud owner of a PS3 at launch. But nobody gave me crap for getting a PS3 funny enough. And now 8+ years later we all can look back and say the PS3 did just fine. It wound up having plenty of games. Some big exclusives that were highly rated and about equaled the 360 in sales give or take. And while sony isn't in the best terms financially it sure didn't bankrupt them and they sure didn't kill it off or let it die. So why all the xbox is doomed threads? By all means the xbox one is selling better then any console ever outside the PS4. this includes the wii, PS3, and 360 from last gen. Sure MS has done some dumb stuff along the way. But nowhere as bad as Sony did back with the PS3 launch. Can we not forget the promise of BC that was removed to save sony money on making PS3s? The 7 controller support that never happened? the last guardian?

or what about this

http://n4g.com/user/blogpost/m4ndat0ry_1nstall/516345

and this

http://www.wired.com/2013/02/sony-ps3-promises/

The main point was the PS3 launch was beyond a mess. So many lies, so many anti consumer things, too expensive due to BD disc, terrible architecture, no games and the list goes on yet, the PS3 wound up doing very well. So maybe a look back at history will show just how crazy some of the statements here are.

The PS3 worth was up to$1,400 if you actually wanted a Blu-ray player and xbox 360,blu-ray stand alone was $1,000 dollars,so basically sony sold people a Blu-ray player which by the way had the best image quality,and a next gen console all for $600 the PS3 was more than $800 dollars to manufacture,while been sold at $600,it was expensive but worth every damn dollar and then some..

Oh and Resistance scored 86% higher than any xbox one exclusive on Meta on launch.

The xbox one is weak and under power yet it cost more than the PS4,ad in fact in UK the xbox one was even more expensive on launch than the PS3,but didn't offer the value the PS3 had on 2006.

Your first link is bullsh** like it always happen on pre,launch in fact did you see sony delivering a patch on launch to eliminate the block on used games.?

No all the contrary Sony allowed owner to share PSN game with up to 5 people,he whole used games crap was based on a Patent awarded to sony on 2005 sound familiar.?

Yeah like it happen last year where people were claiming that sony would block used games based on a Patent,when it was MS who intended to block then and didn't own a patent on it.

http://www.itproportal.com/2005/11/09/ps3-to-block-used-games/

The one that talk about Final Fantasy is a joke is for Japan,on Japan used games were illegal,it wasn't like in US in fact you can trace this to older consoles than the PS1.

Yes that same gave newell make portal 2 on PS3 and call the PS3 version he best version,oh wait maybe it was because the PS3 version had co-op with the PC version something the xbox 360 version totally lack because of MS policies..

Supporting indies on PS3 would have been a nightmare,first the PS3 was expensive tech,and second it was hard as hell to the point where big houses like EA,Activision and other have problems making games imagine how much sadder it would have been for Indies,but mind you that it was sony who sparked indies on consoles with its net Yaroze on 1,a cheap PS1 dev kit,when MS wasn't even on the console market.

No lemmings claimed it had no games,and did so for way more than 3 years,before the PS3 was actually 1 year old already Uncharted was out,Warhawk as well as several other games.

Maybe you were not here,because sony was mock by the PS3 price for years,and sales here were a parade for 360 fans specially NPD which now some xbox fans like William Baker and sts106mat want to avoid like a plague...

Sony catch MS sales wise because MS never had a competent consoles outside US or UK,the rest of the world was PS3 all the way..

Backward compatibility was remove to lower cost,since i was a day 1 owned it didn't affect me,but some sacrifices had to be made,hell it wasn't like you could not buy a PS2 cheap when that happen sony still sold them.

There are games that support 7 players with 7 controllers,see this is what i hate about fanboys you claim to own something but you don't really know your console,lol...

Oh and the whole 7 controller was more of side effect of Bluetooth than anything else,sony just allowed them.

One of the games that support 7 controllers...

Are you using mandatory install against the PS3.? I guess you most have hate PC,because rather than partially installing the game,on PC all the game get install,and just from 1 disc,i remember my copy of UT 2004 on PC was 5 disc to install.

Oh but wait didn't the xbox 360 got HDD installs.? Yeah in some games is even mandatory..lol

Even that MS sold units without HDD...lol

So many lies yes so did MS,like all games will be 720p minimum with 4Xaa..

What anti consumer things the PS3 had.?

It had blu-ray which gave you 1080p movies for a fraction of the retail price.

It had free online play,

It had online browser which allowed you to even watch videos on sites like Hulu,

Didn't force you to buy batteries with a separate charger.,

Didn't charge you $100 for a 20GB HDD or $99 for a crappy ass wifi adapter that on PC was $19 dollars or less,nor sell you a dead format HD-DVD for $200 separate.

Yeah it was the PS3 the one anti consumer,what console blocked Netflix,hulu,internet explorer and all its apps under a pay wall.?

Who charged you for online play since 2002.?

Yeah the PS3 was anti consumer lol...

Poor sad lemming..

TLHBO

So the 2nd worst poster on this site, tries to use the worst posters post as TLHBO? lol And my PS3 and 4 say I'm not a lem (and 1 and 2 of you really wanna go there) I love the playstation, I just hate a lot of the idiots who support it blindly. Not because they support sony, but because they are obnoxious and uninformed and just overall giant loud internet jerks. But thanks for helping prove my point ;)

#106 Posted by tormentos (18097 posts) -

@Riverwolf007 said:

it's hard to believe what a huge joke the ps3 was for literally years in sw.

how long was it before mgs 4 came out and the ps3 managed to get a game with a score above 8.

3 years?

then it was how lousy it ran multiplats and what a joke psn was and how they were stripping everything out of it to get to a price point people would buy it at and the whole rumble fiasco and how the sony executives were all batshit crazy with hype while the ps3 was garbage.

that era was nothing but laughs.

good thing sony learned their lesson and actually put effort into the ps4.

Actually on Launch Resistance was 8.6 here dude it was when gamespot had a different score,outside here the same since Resistance has 86 on meta,fun thing is that Resistance on meta is higher rated than any xbox on exclusive in this moment,including Forza 5,Ryse,DR3 and Killer Instinct..

Hay now that you are going by this site that game you mention has 10 here,we still waiting for the xbox 360 to get one of those..

It may have take the PS3 3 years,the xbox 360 is basically 9 years old and still doesn't have an exclusive here rated that high.

And this is what i find funny because many of you make Fun of resistance for its score,yet it had better online play by endless miles than gears of war which was a lag galore host advantage crap,and now people like you defend the crappy xbox one line up which doesn't have anything higher than 80 on its exclusives,that Karma sure came back to byte you lemmings..

Seeing Sts106mat say Ryse is good when it has a damn 4 score here is epic,you people crapped on games like Resistance and now defend games that score 4 here..lol

At least if good to see that the damage cause by the xbox one is so great,that lemming like you and williams barely post any more,probably can't handle those NPD threads after the noise you people make over the years..

@darkangel115 said:

So the 2nd worst poster on this site, tries to use the worst posters post as TLHBO? lol And my PS3 and 4 say I'm not a lem (and 1 and 2 of you really wanna go there) I love the playstation, I just hate a lot of the idiots who support it blindly. Not because they support sony, but because they are obnoxious and uninformed and just overall giant loud internet jerks. But thanks for helping prove my point ;)

Is that you blackace.?

Hahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

#107 Posted by tormentos (18097 posts) -

@GoldenElementXL said:

My apologies for any jabs at not understanding what you were saying.

No worries and pointers are accepted,i know i get quite a few words wrong..

#108 Edited by mems_1224 (47135 posts) -

@Mozelleple112 said:

@mems_1224 said:

@Blabadon said:

@freedomfreak said:

lol

That last picture brings me back.

OMG I FUCKING LOVE YOU

TC's right though. The One is eerily similar to the PS3, except it's less shit at the time.

Word, if the PS3 actually had games to play it would pretty much be the xbone.

Funny how PS3 won the generation with the best games though.

nah, it didnt

#109 Posted by clr84651 (5446 posts) -

What Lems failed to acknowledge & admit then was Sony has a greater consumer base and is more liked than MS & even with all the advantages MS had then didn't matter, because more consumers would rather buy a PS than an Xbox. It gave MS & Lems a false sense of reality when the 360 was ahead of PS3 sales. It was because of advantages MS had for one lucky gen for them. 1. Huge advantage was a year's headstart. 2. Huge advantage of being $200 less. 3. Advantage of better multiplats with better graphics. Can you imagine what would happen if MS released the Xbox One a year after the PS4 & $200 higher priced? Look how easily the PS4 is outselling the Xbox One with far far fewer advantages than the 360 had!

The fact that the PS3 came from behind should have Lems never questioning Sony's consumer stronghold with the PlayStation brand. Yet here we are still on SW with many of them still denying that the PS4 is going to win. WTF? Seriously?

#110 Posted by Stevo_the_gamer (42879 posts) -

@tormentos said:

@Stevo_the_gamer said:

The funny thing is that even though the PS3 was largely a laughing stock for the first couple years after RIDDDDDDDDDGGGGGGE RACER... the Sony fanbase was just a rabid as they are today.

Lemmings are the new cows?...lol

Remember when sony fans use to look into the PS2 for refuge of been owned sales wise.?

Yeah... this thread is a reminder of how things change,and that Karma is really a bitch..hahahaha

Negative, although they are in a similar position in regards to constantly being on the defensive (especially related to inferior multiplats).

I actually recall Sony fans saying the PS3 was going to pass/catch up to the Xbox 360 in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013. Cows have always been obsessed with sales, although the sheep took the cake back in the day. I don't recall too much hiding behind the PS2.

Everything changes, and evolves -- be it negatively or positively. I especially facepalm at the graphics revolving door debate between the 360/PS3 over the past almost decade.

#111 Edited by UnbiasedPoster (829 posts) -

This thread is one big pile of shit.

People came back to Sony because they have the first party studios that M$ does not. Not sure anyway else to explain a 1 year, 10 million console lead evaporated while the PS3 was never cheaper than the 360.

M$ will never catch up this gen.

#112 Edited by tormentos (18097 posts) -

@Stevo_the_gamer:

In what forum you post stevo.? Here several lemming are saying the xbox one can catch the PS4 and actually use the PS3 as point.

So is basically the same,the only difference is that were are not on 2015 to hear them say it or 2016,but as far as 2014 does yeah they already have say it,that the xbox one will catch and pass the PS4..

#113 Edited by Stevo_the_gamer (42879 posts) -

@tormentos: I've yet to see any lemming state that the Xbox One will pass the PS4 is any determined date in sales. Even then, is certainly not at the frequency or the degree at how "hopeful" PS3 fans were back in the day. Then again, unlike you and your fellow bovine, I'm not obsessed with sales over an inanimate object so perhaps because I don't care about it, I may not see it.

#114 Posted by darkangel115 (1687 posts) -

@clr84651 said:

What Lems failed to acknowledge & admit then was Sony has a greater consumer base and is more liked than MS & even with all the advantages MS had then didn't matter, because more consumers would rather buy a PS than an Xbox. It gave MS & Lems a false sense of reality when the 360 was ahead of PS3 sales. It was because of advantages MS had for one lucky gen for them. 1. Huge advantage was a year's headstart. 2. Huge advantage of being $200 less. 3. Advantage of better multiplats with better graphics. Can you imagine what would happen if MS released the Xbox One a year after the PS4 & $200 higher priced? Look how easily the PS4 is outselling the Xbox One with far far fewer advantages than the 360 had!

The fact that the PS3 came from behind should have Lems never questioning Sony's consumer stronghold with the PlayStation brand. Yet here we are still on SW with many of them still denying that the PS4 is going to win. WTF? Seriously?

Yes Sony does have a lot more fans. Thats why the PS3 was such a terrible idea. Sony got so cocky, they thought they could get away with anything. Sure in the end it turned out fine, but the blatant fanboysim love sony gets, its what will cause them to stop trying. I mean look at all their other divisions. Their TVs, laptops (sold off), Phones etc. Their products suck because sony still thinks they can sell at a premium price because of their name. The only good product sony makes now is the PS4. Their Tvs, phones, everything aren't top 3 in anything, but they charge like they are.

#115 Posted by darkangel115 (1687 posts) -
@UnbiasedPoster said:

This thread is one big pile of shit.

People came back to Sony because they have the first party studios that M$ does not. Not sure anyway else to explain a 1 year, 10 million console lead evaporated while the PS3 was never cheaper than the 360.

M$ will never catch up this gen.

As an biased poster, you sure sound biased. MS's exclusives don't get the internet fist bumping that Sony does, But they sell a ton more. Outside of GT which has been around since the 1st PS which was almost 20 years ago not one franchise has hit the 50 million mark like halo. hell not even the 25 million mark. Their top franchise is god of war at about 22 million sold. their 2nd best is UC at about 17 million sold. throw in infamous and KZ and still they don't reach the sales of halo alone. The only studio Sony has that people like are ND. and they make what 2-3 games per generation? In the end. MS exclusives make them more money then Sony's do.

#116 Edited by xX0LDSCH00LXx (1409 posts) -

@I_can_haz said:

XBone isn't gonna make a comeback OP. It doesn't have the worldwide appeal or first party studios Sony has to stage a comeback. You have to remember that the PS3 was outselling the 360 from day one worldwide despite being $200 more, something that the XBone isn't close to doing. XBone is getting owned worldwide by the PS4 with no signs of relief.

Let it go lems, the XBone is not the PS3, going back 8 years to damage control the Xflop One is the height of desperation guys.

Care to prove that the PS3 was outselling the 360 since day one? Remember, It's taken almost 8 years for the PS3 to overcome the 10 million sales gap that the 360 originally had. In addition, the X1 will soon be launching in more countries so this will significantly improve X1 sales.

As far as the X1 not making a come back; it doesn't have too, it's doing fine the way it is. MS has injected $1 billion into game creation for the X1, Phil Spencer is now head of the whole Xbox division and promises nothing but games, the X1 has the most brand new IP's currently this gen; which are all full retail exclusives, XBL is still the go-to online service for competitive gamers because of it's stability and reliability - I just don't see a problem here.

#117 Edited by clr84651 (5446 posts) -

@darkangel115 said:

@clr84651 said:

What Lems failed to acknowledge & admit then was Sony has a greater consumer base and is more liked than MS & even with all the advantages MS had then didn't matter, because more consumers would rather buy a PS than an Xbox. It gave MS & Lems a false sense of reality when the 360 was ahead of PS3 sales. It was because of advantages MS had for one lucky gen for them. 1. Huge advantage was a year's headstart. 2. Huge advantage of being $200 less. 3. Advantage of better multiplats with better graphics. Can you imagine what would happen if MS released the Xbox One a year after the PS4 & $200 higher priced? Look how easily the PS4 is outselling the Xbox One with far far fewer advantages than the 360 had!

The fact that the PS3 came from behind should have Lems never questioning Sony's consumer stronghold with the PlayStation brand. Yet here we are still on SW with many of them still denying that the PS4 is going to win. WTF? Seriously?

Yes Sony does have a lot more fans. Thats why the PS3 was such a terrible idea. Sony got so cocky, they thought they could get away with anything. Sure in the end it turned out fine, but the blatant fanboysim love sony gets, its what will cause them to stop trying. I mean look at all their other divisions. Their TVs, laptops (sold off), Phones etc. Their products suck because sony still thinks they can sell at a premium price because of their name. The only good product sony makes now is the PS4. Their Tvs, phones, everything aren't top 3 in anything, but they charge like they are.

Yes true, but look what MS wanted to pull with the Xbox One. Both companies have messed up, but that aside Sony has a way bigger worldwide consumer base for their gaming consoles.

Companies have made devices better to challenge Sony's other products and not screwed up like MS did.

#118 Posted by darkangel115 (1687 posts) -

@clr84651 said:

@darkangel115 said:

@clr84651 said:

What Lems failed to acknowledge & admit then was Sony has a greater consumer base and is more liked than MS & even with all the advantages MS had then didn't matter, because more consumers would rather buy a PS than an Xbox. It gave MS & Lems a false sense of reality when the 360 was ahead of PS3 sales. It was because of advantages MS had for one lucky gen for them. 1. Huge advantage was a year's headstart. 2. Huge advantage of being $200 less. 3. Advantage of better multiplats with better graphics. Can you imagine what would happen if MS released the Xbox One a year after the PS4 & $200 higher priced? Look how easily the PS4 is outselling the Xbox One with far far fewer advantages than the 360 had!

The fact that the PS3 came from behind should have Lems never questioning Sony's consumer stronghold with the PlayStation brand. Yet here we are still on SW with many of them still denying that the PS4 is going to win. WTF? Seriously?

Yes Sony does have a lot more fans. Thats why the PS3 was such a terrible idea. Sony got so cocky, they thought they could get away with anything. Sure in the end it turned out fine, but the blatant fanboysim love sony gets, its what will cause them to stop trying. I mean look at all their other divisions. Their TVs, laptops (sold off), Phones etc. Their products suck because sony still thinks they can sell at a premium price because of their name. The only good product sony makes now is the PS4. Their Tvs, phones, everything aren't top 3 in anything, but they charge like they are.

Yes true, but look what MS wanted to pull with the Xbox One. Both companies have messed up, but that aside Sony has a way bigger worldwide consumer base for their gaming consoles.

I'm still confused as to what MS exactly tried to pull? was it pushing an all digital future? was it having a games console be more of an all around entertainment console? was it including a camera instead of making it an accessory? I mean non of these things to me at least are trying to pull anything? Can i see some people upset about paying extra for a kinect? of course, can i see some people with bad internet or bandwidth caps being upset about all digital? yes. But I don't see why its pulling something. We live in a world with digital is the future, music is pretty much all digital, netflix pushed blockbuster and hollywood video out of business. Pretty much everyone uses youtube. Digital is the future. PC gamers are all digital. I can't remember the last time i even see a hard copy PC game in a store.

#119 Edited by cainetao11 (17550 posts) -

@darkangel115 said:

@GotNugz said:

People always overreact the Xbox one will most likely ba alright in the long term. The ps3 offered serious bang for the buck though. A blu Ray player, state of the art hardware, and free online. Microsoft isn't for $500 I get weak hardware, pointless Kinect, and suspect first party. This is the reason I jumped ship from the 360.

except the PS3 wasn't state of the art hardware. It was terribly designed. Devs pointed it out from the beginning and even to this day multi plats are worse on it then the 360. Some games flat out broken. Yes the free online was a good selling point, but PSN was terrible when it launched. it really only got better 2-3 years down the road. Also what about people who didn't want a BD player? right? I mean according to system wars a console is for games only? So why pay an extra 200 dollars for weaker hardware just because it plays blu ray?

Because the rules are different for Sony to some. Many wont admit it, but "it only does everything" says it all. Xbox one tries to take that approach to a degree and its all bad, non gaming. And weaker hardware, well if power is the issue why settle for a PS4? PC trumps all. I always get both, will do so again. I have an xbox one, and if it wasn't for school, I'd get to play more. If it wasn't for the GI Bill living stipend, I wouldn't have enrolled in summer classes!! But that money is good and will buy a few games, and a PS4.

#120 Posted by Randolph (10520 posts) -

@GotNugz said:

@darkangel115: the ps3 launched with an equivalent $400 graphics card, and akward but powerful cell. Also the cheapest blu Ray players at the time were $500 alone. The blu Ray player also benefited games as well because they weren't multi disk.

Not having multiple discs provided no advantage nor convenience to anyone. The amount of time needed to wait on large mandatory installs was longer than the time it would take to get up and change a disc. MGS4 all fit on one blu ray disc. So what? The installs between chapters took longer than swapping a disc, and was more annoying.

#121 Posted by NFJSupreme (5374 posts) -

I wanted to make a thread like this a while back but decided to leave it to the internet. Thank you sir.

#122 Posted by ConanTheStoner (5332 posts) -

Haha, yeah terrible times for cows back then... Almost two years straight of getting kicked in the nuts, most of them abandoned the board until MGS4 came out.

What's amazing though is seeing how so many lems have taken on the same delusional traits that I once thought were exclusive to cows. I mean they aren't that bad yet and they aren't acting like self entitled pricks... but it's getting a little too close for comfort. Get it together lems!

#123 Posted by Indicud (739 posts) -

So basically, the TC is a butthurt fanboy who in an attempt to claim ownage on an "opposing" faction makes a thread detailing the history of a console that is nearing a decade ago.

Desperate times indeed.

#124 Posted by Indicud (739 posts) -

@Stevo_the_gamer: you do realize the PS3 outsold the Xbox 360 in all their respective years both on the market?

#125 Edited by Stevo_the_gamer (42879 posts) -

@Indicud: Is there any other way to close the gap? I'm talking about cows hopefully believing in passing the Xbox 360 in total "overall" sales, not annual sales.

#126 Edited by scatteh316 (4926 posts) -

What about the people who didn't want to built in Blu-Play capability? They're a bunch idiots..... As touted by many many developers over the years going with Blu-Ray and it's storage capability was the right move over DVD.

#127 Posted by verbtex (8527 posts) -

Man I started posting in 2006...

#128 Posted by MK-Professor (3825 posts) -
@tormentos said:

@MK-Professor said:

You can troll all you want, but the fact is the 8800GTX is older than the ps3 even for a few days (in Japan, because in Europe the 8800GTX was released several months before the ps3 ).

A quad core CPU and a 8800GTX was a better investment than the PS3 in the long run FACT.

And in 2013 the 8800GTX play games with better graphics and performance than ps3. And I hope you are joking about the thing with the "2013 best platform"....

By 1 week troll...hahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

A fake quad core CPU on 2006 was $1,000+ alone and wasn't true quad cores those arrived on 2007..lol

So $1600 for CPU and GPU alone..hahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Oh did i use the fact that PSN games could be share with up to 5 of your friends.? can you share your PC games with me.? Hahaha bububut value and online was free on PS3 as well..lol

Is forgotten already..haha

And no unless you have the high rated exclusive on PC to prove so,do you have something higher rated than TLOU on PC last year.? Share it... Oh wait but you also still waiting for GTA5..lol

1 week in Japan, and in Europe (where i live) several months before the ps3.

fake quad core that even a dual core annihilate the ps3, not to mention that several months after you coud get a similar quad core for 1/3 of the cost.

You can share any PC game, the same way you can on consoles.

more exlusives and the best version of multiplats is far more important than a singel crappy game. Bacasue:

  • more exlusives = fact.
  • best version of multiplats = fact
  • high rated exclusive = opinion

Still butthurt that a 8800GTX play games with better graphics and performance than ps3?

#129 Edited by misterpmedia (3387 posts) -

@Shewgenja said:

All that shit storm around the PS3 was the gaming media playing buddy buddy with Microsoft. Hind-sight being 20/20, the PS3 was the more powerful system. It was the cheaper system to own despite its pricepoint due to the free online. It was backed with more and better first party exclusives. It was also a very good BluRay player at the time it launched.

Microsoft opened the door for PS3 to catch up. When they switched focus to Kinect and abandoned gamers like me, we went to where the grass was greener. I used to buy into that bullshit we were all fed until I actually had one of my own and appreciated exactly how much a better system it really was. THAT is a major reason why things are the way they are now.

Sure, there are a number of people who owe brand loyalty to the XBox the same way that brand loyalty was pushing the PS3 early on. That's not to say there is real credibility to the bullshit like the DRM rumors, "Cell being broken and not working", BluRay costing $1000, PS3 overheating by the truck load and all that other stuff I bought back then which led me to get a 360. Microsoft was LUCKY that they had the developer support and messaging right with the gamers back then because RRoD tested a lot of peoples patience. The rumor mill surrounding the PS3 and the press playing along with it made sure people turned around and went through three or four XBoxes rather than give PS3 a chance until all signs pointed to a company drunk on sales chasing after the Wii's pot-o-gold leaving the gamers spinning in place.

#130 Posted by misterpmedia (3387 posts) -

@clr84651 said:

What Lems failed to acknowledge & admit then was Sony has a greater consumer base and is more liked than MS & even with all the advantages MS had then didn't matter, because more consumers would rather buy a PS than an Xbox. It gave MS & Lems a false sense of reality when the 360 was ahead of PS3 sales. It was because of advantages MS had for one lucky gen for them. 1. Huge advantage was a year's headstart. 2. Huge advantage of being $200 less. 3. Advantage of better multiplats with better graphics. Can you imagine what would happen if MS released the Xbox One a year after the PS4 & $200 higher priced? Look how easily the PS4 is outselling the Xbox One with far far fewer advantages than the 360 had!

The fact that the PS3 came from behind should have Lems never questioning Sony's consumer stronghold with the PlayStation brand. Yet here we are still on SW with many of them still denying that the PS4 is going to win. WTF? Seriously?

A very delicious post, thank you for serving it up. It may taste extremely salty to lems so if you are one adjust the seasoning accordingly.

#131 Edited by sts106mat (19846 posts) -

@misterpmedia: wow, System wars now has a Fanboy, of Sony fanboys.

#132 Edited by misterpmedia (3387 posts) -

@sts106mat said:

@misterpmedia: wow, System wars now has a Fanboy, of Sony fanboys.

#133 Posted by tormentos (18097 posts) -

@MK-Professor said:

1 week in Japan, and in Europe (where i live) several months before the ps3.

fake quad core that even a dual core annihilate the ps3, not to mention that several months after you coud get a similar quad core for 1/3 of the cost.

You can share any PC game, the same way you can on consoles.

more exlusives and the best version of multiplats is far more important than a singel crappy game. Bacasue:

  • more exlusives = fact.
  • best version of multiplats = fact
  • high rated exclusive = opinion

Still butthurt that a 8800GTX play games with better graphics and performance than ps3?

No dude the card came on November on US here by some days...

Dual core what.? hahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Even the actual quad core of that time where sh** compare to the parallel power of the Cell,a quad core may had been better than Cell running an OS,but when it came to brute force the Cell slapped that dual core into china,in fact encoding movies Cell would completely destroy a quad core from 2007 and even stronger CPU of newer years,have you forgot Folding home and how the PS3 was spanking PC which used their CPU alone even that they have way less PS3 on the project.?

OS TypeCurrent TFLOPS*Active CPUsTotal CPUs
Windows1541623341629354
Mac OS X/PowerPC7892095593
Mac OS X/Intel1030687728
Linux4325492216436
GPU467742284
PLAYSTATION®34943105041044
Total7542316381992439

1,629,354 PC vs 41,044 PS3 and the PS3 was producing 494 TF while the PC was producing 154TF.?

Man the ratio of PC per PS3 was huge and still Cell kicked the living crap out of PC.

A novel transcoding tool Fixstars allows for the conversion of video material on the Full HD format, with the help of a Playstation 3 in real time.

The conversion of video footage in Full HD movies at a resolution of 1920 x 1080 provides current desktop CPUs with a lengthy task. This allows the transcoding of a movie sometimes half a day.

Now put Linux Developer Fixstars a video converter called Codecsys CE-10, which was to encode movies into MPEG-4-AVC format (H.265) The Cell processor uses a Playstation 3 - this format will be predominantly on Blu-Ray media or IP-TV via video-stream uses. The CE-10-encoder sends out from a Windows PC, the output data via Ethernet to the console, which finished the encoded data back to the PC sends back.

According to the announcement of Fixstars reached the Cell processor of the Playstation a performance of 29 FPS, that is 1.2 times real-time conversion - the cell has a similar performance as the CUDA Badaboom encoder in combination with an Nvidia Geforce GTX-285. By comparison, Intel's current top-CPU, the Core i7 965 XE, does it still at 18 FPS - normal desktop CPUs even create only about 5 FPS.

http://www.nairaland.com/275825/ps-cell-faster-than-core

http://archive.benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=253&Itemid=63&limit=1&limitstart=1

You know that core i7 was $1,000 on late November 2008 right.?

That test was done just a few months after it came,Cell was for a video game console not for OS running on PC,and for that it kicked the crap out of any dual core or quad core of his era and and some even beyond its era,like this comparison show 1,2 times real time conversion at 29 FPS when a $1,000 CPU could do 18FPS is a achievement of epic proportions for Cell which was a console CPU.

Running general purpose crap a quad core or dual core may beat it,but when doing heavy lifting Cell kicked them hard, look at normal desktop CPU remark 5 FPS..lol

No you can't share PC games as you do wit consoles stop lying..

That single crappy game >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all PC exclusives in years,oh wait i forgot that consoles dominate those charts hey the highest rated ones are from Wii and N64 the only entry close is Half life which is multiplatform even that it started on PC,after that PC has nothing even close to relevant,even that they have tons of games..

Hahahaa...........

Reviews = opinions where have i read that before oh yeah on some lemming call Kingtito who loss a score argument with me,so he dismiss scores as opinions,doesn't stop him from riding those same score to call PS games flop,just like it hasn't stop you..hahahaha

#134 Edited by misterpmedia (3387 posts) -

@ConanTheStoner said:

Haha, yeah terrible times for cows back then... Almost two years straight of getting kicked in the nuts, most of them abandoned the board until MGS4 came out.

What's amazing though is seeing how so many lems have taken on the same delusional traits that I once thought were exclusive to cows. I mean they aren't that bad yet and they aren't acting like self entitled pricks... but it's getting a little too close for comfort. Get it together lems!

lol it's definitely fun to watch mostly because people who preferred playstation back then have already been through this specific ordeal and know what it's like so it's fun seeing lems in denial :P

#135 Edited by MK-Professor (3825 posts) -

@tormentos said:

@MK-Professor said:

1 week in Japan, and in Europe (where i live) several months before the ps3.

fake quad core that even a dual core annihilate the ps3, not to mention that several months after you coud get a similar quad core for 1/3 of the cost.

You can share any PC game, the same way you can on consoles.

more exlusives and the best version of multiplats is far more important than a singel crappy game. Bacasue:

  • more exlusives = fact.
  • best version of multiplats = fact
  • high rated exclusive = opinion

Still butthurt that a 8800GTX play games with better graphics and performance than ps3?

No dude the card came on November on US here by some days...

Dual core what.? hahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Even the actual quad core of that time where sh** compare to the parallel power of the Cell,a quad core may had been better than Cell running an OS,but when it came to brute force the Cell slapped that dual core into china,in fact encoding movies Cell would completely destroy a quad core from 2007 and even stronger CPU of newer years,have you forgot Folding home and how the PS3 was spanking PC which used their CPU alone even that they have way less PS3 on the project.?

OS TypeCurrent TFLOPS*Active CPUsTotal CPUs
Windows1541623341629354
Mac OS X/PowerPC7892095593
Mac OS X/Intel1030687728
Linux4325492216436
GPU467742284
PLAYSTATION®34943105041044
Total7542316381992439

1,629,354 PC vs 41,044 PS3 and the PS3 was producing 494 TF while the PC was producing 154TF.?

Man the ratio of PC per PS3 was huge and still Cell kicked the living crap out of PC.

A novel transcoding tool Fixstars allows for the conversion of video material on the Full HD format, with the help of a Playstation 3 in real time.

The conversion of video footage in Full HD movies at a resolution of 1920 x 1080 provides current desktop CPUs with a lengthy task. This allows the transcoding of a movie sometimes half a day.

Now put Linux Developer Fixstars a video converter called Codecsys CE-10, which was to encode movies into MPEG-4-AVC format (H.265) The Cell processor uses a Playstation 3 - this format will be predominantly on Blu-Ray media or IP-TV via video-stream uses. The CE-10-encoder sends out from a Windows PC, the output data via Ethernet to the console, which finished the encoded data back to the PC sends back.

According to the announcement of Fixstars reached the Cell processor of the Playstation a performance of 29 FPS, that is 1.2 times real-time conversion - the cell has a similar performance as the CUDA Badaboom encoder in combination with an Nvidia Geforce GTX-285. By comparison, Intel's current top-CPU, the Core i7 965 XE, does it still at 18 FPS - normal desktop CPUs even create only about 5 FPS.

http://www.nairaland.com/275825/ps-cell-faster-than-core

http://archive.benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=253&Itemid=63&limit=1&limitstart=1

You know that core i7 was $1,000 on late November 2008 right.?

That test was done just a few months after it came,Cell was for a video game console not for OS running on PC,and for that it kicked the crap out of any dual core or quad core of his era and and some even beyond its era,like this comparison show 1,2 times real time conversion at 29 FPS when a $1,000 CPU could do 18FPS is a achievement of epic proportions for Cell which was a console CPU.

Running general purpose crap a quad core or dual core may beat it,but when doing heavy lifting Cell kicked them hard, look at normal desktop CPU remark 5 FPS..lol

No you can't share PC games as you do wit consoles stop lying..

That single crappy game >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all PC exclusives in years,oh wait i forgot that consoles dominate those charts hey the highest rated ones are from Wii and N64 the only entry close is Half life which is multiplatform even that it started on PC,after that PC has nothing even close to relevant,even that they have tons of games..

Hahahaa...........

Reviews = opinions where have i read that before oh yeah on some lemming call Kingtito who loss a score argument with me,so he dismiss scores as opinions,doesn't stop him from riding those same score to call PS games flop,just like it hasn't stop you..hahahaha

  • PS3 released, November 11, 2006 (in Japan)
  • PS3 released, March 23, 2007 (in Europe)
  • 8800GTX released, November 8, 2006 (global)

4.5 months late for an inferior hardware LOL

a dual core with a 8800GTX annihilate the ps3, proof, multiplats performance and look better.

i7-920 cost around $300 in November 2008 and that CPU is faster than the PS4 cpu. (very funny that you compare it with the PS3 LOLOLOL) tormentos never fail to entertain, well done!!!

You can share PC games as you do wit consoles...

again

  • number of exlusives = fact.
  • best version of multiplats = fact
  • reviews scores = opinion (people have different tastes do you know that? so a good game for you it is not a good game from someone else, and the opposite)

#136 Edited by kuu2 (7329 posts) -

Sony Fan on a rampage in here, and Cow Whisperers aplenty.

Price will be sorted out shortly and right now The One has the most compelling software on their system of the two.

#137 Edited by Heil68 (44504 posts) -

@kuu2 said:

Sony Fan on a rampage in here, and Cow Whisperers aplenty.

Price will be sorted out shortly and right now The One has the most compelling software on their system of the two.

and yet PS4 is selling more? Lems am cry.

:D

#138 Posted by kuu2 (7329 posts) -

@sts106mat said:

@misterpmedia: wow, System wars now has a Fanboy, of Sony fanboys.

When you aren't a player you pick up pom poms.

#139 Edited by scottpsfan14 (5237 posts) -

@MK-Professor said:

What I remember the most back then is that when I had my 8800GTX the ps3 haven't even released yet and it was already a garbage, and ps3 fanboys was saying things like the ps3 is going to performance better than the 8800GTX. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL funtimes....

shut up.

#140 Edited by tormentos (18097 posts) -

@MK-Professor said:

  • PS3 released, November 11, 2006 (in Japan)
  • PS3 released, March 23, 2007 (in Europe)
  • 8800GTX released, November 8, 2006 (global)

4.5 months late for an inferior hardware LOL

a dual core with a 8800GTX annihilate the ps3, proof, multiplats performance and look better.

i7-920 cost around $300 in November 2008 and that CPU is faster than the PS4 cpu. (very funny that you compare it with the PS3 LOLOLOL) tormentos never fail to entertain, well done!!!

You can share PC games as you do wit consoles...

again

  • number of exlusives = fact.
  • best version of multiplats = fact
  • reviews scores = opinion (people have different tastes do you know that? so a good game for you it is not a good game from someone else, and the opposite)

It counts from the initial launch not territorial it was just 3 days..lol and cost as much as the PS3 it self which was a complete console not a useless cards that does nothing without a proper PC..

A Dual core + a 8800GTX beat the PS3.

fake quad core that even a dual core annihilate the ps3,

This is what you claim buffoon,no those CPU for gaming kiss Cell ass,some even stronger than those actually did as well,like i showed with proof and link...

The PS4 doesn't have Cell,so you running to hype on the weak PS4 CPU serve you for nothing,the jaguar on PS4 is actually more friendly and better running general purpose code than Cell ever was,but when it comes to power is just doesn't hold a candle to Cell,but the argument wasn't about the PS4 it was about the PS3 kicking the crap out of a $1,000 Intel CPU encoding real time video something that has been very popular on PC and which even i my self have done,and it took for ever..

Again.

Yet most sucks ass and don't even chart.

Yes but you pay more to.

Hypocrite view when you use score to downplay PS3 and Ps4 games..lol

Scores are good only when it serve you best..hahahaha

#141 Posted by kweeni (10912 posts) -

@freedomfreak said:

lol

That last picture brings me back.

LOL this song, dem good ol' days

#142 Edited by kweeni (10912 posts) -

Still remember this one :P

That said the ps3 was(still is) an awesome console. I'm sure the Xbone will do fine in the end as well.

#143 Edited by Suppaman100 (3910 posts) -

@mems_1224 said:

@Mozelleple112 said:

@mems_1224 said:

@Blabadon said:

@freedomfreak said:

lol

That last picture brings me back.

OMG I FUCKING LOVE YOU

TC's right though. The One is eerily similar to the PS3, except it's less shit at the time.

Word, if the PS3 actually had games to play it would pretty much be the xbone.

Funny how PS3 won the generation with the best games though.

nah, it didnt

Lol then what did, the 360 or wii? LOL

#144 Edited by SambaLele (5418 posts) -

Funny though that Sony's bet on BD paid off... while MS' bet on Kinect... well... at least it did sell well right?

#145 Edited by darkangel115 (1687 posts) -

@cainetao11 said:

@darkangel115 said:

@GotNugz said:

People always overreact the Xbox one will most likely ba alright in the long term. The ps3 offered serious bang for the buck though. A blu Ray player, state of the art hardware, and free online. Microsoft isn't for $500 I get weak hardware, pointless Kinect, and suspect first party. This is the reason I jumped ship from the 360.

except the PS3 wasn't state of the art hardware. It was terribly designed. Devs pointed it out from the beginning and even to this day multi plats are worse on it then the 360. Some games flat out broken. Yes the free online was a good selling point, but PSN was terrible when it launched. it really only got better 2-3 years down the road. Also what about people who didn't want a BD player? right? I mean according to system wars a console is for games only? So why pay an extra 200 dollars for weaker hardware just because it plays blu ray?

Because the rules are different for Sony to some. Many wont admit it, but "it only does everything" says it all. Xbox one tries to take that approach to a degree and its all bad, non gaming. And weaker hardware, well if power is the issue why settle for a PS4? PC trumps all. I always get both, will do so again. I have an xbox one, and if it wasn't for school, I'd get to play more. If it wasn't for the GI Bill living stipend, I wouldn't have enrolled in summer classes!! But that money is good and will buy a few games, and a PS4.

exactly the point of the thread. the PS3 was the "all in one" as it was marketed with the "it only does everything" weaker hardware, worse MPs, more expensive etc etc. but nobody batted an eye.

#146 Edited by misterpmedia (3387 posts) -

@kuu2 said:

Sony Fan on a rampage in here, and Cow Whisperers aplenty.

Price will be sorted out shortly and right now The One has the most compelling software on their system of the two.

No it doesn't.

Boom, opinion combating opinion. About to blow Kuu2's mind.

#147 Posted by StormyJoe (5378 posts) -

@darkangel115: I think the reason is that Sony fans expected the PS3 to crush the 360; given how the previous generation went. They are still upset that didn't happen. So, they are making a huge deal over this gen (even though it is only 6 months old) as some sort of weird "payback".

Good thread, btw. I had forgotten about a lot of that stuff.

#148 Edited by StormyJoe (5378 posts) -

@tormentos said:
@sts106mat said:

Thread title "lets take a trip back to 2006"

Unsurprising to see tormentos in this thread as he has been stuck in 2006 for the last 8 years......still going on about AA batteries ? hahahahahahahahaha

So wait a moron comes and claim the PS3 was anti consumer,and i can point out what anti consumer really mean.?

I guess you still hurting from my arguments so tell me,how does anything you say change the fact that you need to buy a separate charge with rechargeable batteries for your 360 while you didn't need it for PS3.?

Oh wait the xbox one again does the same sh**....hahaha

So you are use to get rip off by MS is that it.? hahahaaa

That is a PS3/4 advantage.

#149 Posted by darkangel115 (1687 posts) -

@StormyJoe said:

@darkangel115: I think the reason is that Sony fans expected the PS3 to crush the 360; given how the previous generation went. They are still upset that didn't happen. So, they are making a huge deal over this gen (even though it is only 6 months old) as some sort of weird "payback".

Good thread, btw. I had forgotten about a lot of that stuff.

wow if people were really holding a grudge for 8+ years over a gaming console, that is pretty dam sad. I think these people need professional help more then a gaming console.

and thanks! I thought i'd give a throwback to the last gen launch

#150 Posted by darkangel115 (1687 posts) -
@StormyJoe said:

@tormentos said:
@sts106mat said:

Thread title "lets take a trip back to 2006"

Unsurprising to see tormentos in this thread as he has been stuck in 2006 for the last 8 years......still going on about AA batteries ? hahahahahahahahaha

So wait a moron comes and claim the PS3 was anti consumer,and i can point out what anti consumer really mean.?

I guess you still hurting from my arguments so tell me,how does anything you say change the fact that you need to buy a separate charge with rechargeable batteries for your 360 while you didn't need it for PS3.?

Oh wait the xbox one again does the same sh**....hahaha

So you are use to get rip off by MS is that it.? hahahaaa

That is a PS3/4 advantage.

I don't know why you still try and talk sense into him. It'll never work. I guess some people prefer having a built in battery that you can't replace and has terrible life and needing to plug it in to get a charge over the convenience of having rechargeable AA batteries. I mean sony must be onto something since they are the only company in the world that does this to their remotes. I guess samsung is ripping me off cause my TV remote uses batteries and so does my DVR remote, and my car too. I mean why does my car have a battery in it that isn't part of the car and not changeable? Stupid cadillac ripping me off. and my laptop too. how dare they have an easily swappable battery for me. It should be more like a chrome book where you have to disassemble the who laptop to replace the battery. SMH