ZOMG XBOX360 VS. PS3 VS. WII ZOMG

i think it was his friend loool,thats bullshit,the 360 sold more consoles cause you can play backups,and that is a huge help on the hardware sales,and helps on the choice between buying a 360/ps3,in my case i bought a 360 first cause i could play burned games,and i had 3 XBOX360 and two of them got RRoD,but the one i have now i install the games always to prevent overheating the console,after i bought a PS3,its been 2 years and i had no problem at all with my ps3,and that thing of selling a PS3 to buy 360 is just his opinion,and now that the ps3 has been hacked,you have more reasons to keep the console

 

people bought the 360 because of being able to pirate?! that is a convincing idea. but it becomes a problem when you put in the arguement that many of the 360 owners are infatuated with the onlive feature of the 360, which would put you on the ban list if you have a modded console. i have seen people on craigslist who have a 360 that was banned from microsofts onlive network that they sell their consoles at a cheap rate. this also becomes a problem when the xbox 1 was just as moddable, maybe even easier then modding the ps2 as it was softmodded, but it didn't do sales any better. so having a console that is moddable isn't a factor because you have the xbox 1, which was easier to mod and it didn't cause people to buy the console.

sales do show that the ps3 is gaining ground but what are people buying the ps3 for?! remember that the ps3 is a blu ray player, and there are people who are marketing it as a multimedia hub. so the ps3 is gaining ground, but is it gaining ground because people are buying it for games or is it because of the movie feature?! remember, when the ps3 first came out, people bought it for the purpose of playing blu ray movies. and the people who did own a ps3, they used it mainly to watch blu ray movies. is this the same effect we're seeing here, that people are buying the ps3 for it's movie feature? on the 360, it is a movie player as it has the ability to watch dvd movies, but that isn't the cause for people who own a ps3 to suddenly ditch their ps3 for the games on the 360, nor is it the reason for people to buy a 360 as opposed to the ps3 as watching a dvd movie has become accessable [dvd players are very cheap now].

that one person who sold their ps3 just to own a 360 isn't only a single person and that reflected many of the hardcore community. there are numerous people on the internet who have also stated this. you'll need to rummage through the internet for that, it won't be articles from websites like kotaku or ign, it'll be based on the comments of users posted on either a message forum or comments for articles. it'll be hard to find because there's a lot of garbage on the internet. you easily forgot this, just as how you easily forgot that devil may cry 4 was a ps3 exclusive and became multiplatform for the 360.

there was no competition when the ps2 was released! you had microsoft which was a new contender in the market, which people were skeptical about and you had nintendo which didn't had their heads on straight. the dreamcast was released on 1999 and died 2001, the ps2 was released 2000, xbox was released on 2001 and the gamecube was released on 2001. so where is the competition for two years? by the time the gamecube and xbox had a modest library of games, which would take about a year, the ps2 had bundles. now what about the 2000 and 2001 when the dreamcast was around? remember, you had the ps1's library to fall back on, so there was more incentive to buy a ps2 then a dreamcast. there weren't that many ps2 games during release, but there was a fall back as the ps1 library was huge, so even though the ps2 didn't have any ps2 games, at least people could be momentarily entertained with the huge library of the ps1. so was there any competition for the ps2? no! remember that video i posted about how some guy said sony's success was based on luck, we'll here is the partial truth. look at the handheld market which sony tried to take and nintendo crushed them. if nintendo wasn't so screwed during the gamecube era, the ps2 would have had a problem. look at the wii to the ps3. nintendo has their act straighten out that they released a console that killed the ps3. now we know that sony was lucky!

 

not many games. just the annual Fifa and such

 

when we look at the gamecube, xbox and playstation 2, we can clearly see that the playstation 2 beaten both gamecube and xbox because there were more ps2 consoles [100+million or so]. but when we look at the ps3, xbox 360 and wii, the wii didn't beat ps3 though there are more wii consoles in the market. if we look from before, the ps2 would clearly be the leader when we consider that it's been out in the market for 3-4 years after release with the amount of consoles sold during that time. but this generation, the console have been released 3-4 years and the one with the less unit sold has not been beaten the the console with the most unit sold. how do you explain this paradox?! the paradox is that ps3 owners and such don't want to admit defeat. the n64 and the gamecube were complete failures because it didn't sold as much consoles as their competition. even saturn gamers have to admit that the saturn, though probably a powerful machine, was a disaster and was a failure as it died rather quickly. 74 million wii and 38 million ps3 worldwide and clearly the winner is the ps3. get with reality, the ps3 is third, meaning beaten by nintendo's wii, just as the gamecube was third and beaten by the sony ps2.

ps2 took on gamecube and xbox, but that is two years after the gamecube and xbox had enough software. during that time, there was no competition. 2001 gamecube and xbox was released. for gamecube and xbox to have enough software for sales support, it requires at least a year as that is the general time it takes to make a game. so that means 2002 was when sales would be higher [or more sales opportunity] for gamecube and xbox. sony at 2000 had their ps1 library and 2001 had enough ps2 software support. where is the competition here? there isn't any because it's all broken. you had sega that lacked the library support when compared to the ps1 and ps2 later [2001-2002, ps2 had more ps2 software while the competition had meager software], and you had new entries which didn't had the software support. so there you go, all luck and no competition. look at the handheld market which nintendo is very strong and adament about. sony jumped in the handheld and got crushed. when sony is faced with competition, they lost big time. we see this on the handheld market as the psp is dead and the nintendo ds is thriving. we also see this on the wii, which was released with inferior tech and was released a week after the ps3. so again, sony's success was truly based on luck, or rather that there was a lack of competition.

 

The answer in that paradox is that there is no paradox.

 

I agree with the part about people buying the 360 for being able to pirate. There's probably some people who do buy it for piracy reasons but I don't think it's a big number of people.

Also the Original Xbox (which will now use the acronym OX because I'm tired of typing it all) was softmoddable, yes, but it wasn't that easy. Softmodding of the Wii or the 360 is much easier.

And not knowing what the name of Xbox's online is makes you look like you don't even know what you're talking about.

The PS3 isn't the most affordable BluRay player on the market anymore, which was it's allure when it first launched (700 dollars for a Bluray player was a good price). It's gaining ground because it's all these things, it's a gaming machine, multimedia hub and BluRay player. If people want a BluRay player, and just that, they can go to a BestBuy or Visions or any other store and buy a decent one for 100 to 150 dollars.

Also I don't know what the last half of this paragraph means at all, I've read it like ten times and I don't understand what you're saying.

I think you and Hypr went through this before, internet comments by users aren't a reliable source of information on this sort of thing. I'm betting a lot of users that say that they ditched the PS3 for a 360 are trolls and just doing it to illicit a response. This response you came up with 'you'll need to rummage through the internet' is not a source of valid information either, and you're back peddling your argument which makes me think that this argument has even less validity to it.

Also, an exclusive going multiplatform is HARDLY a reason to ditch a console for another, it just means that you keep the console you currently own and play that game. I doubt people sold their ps3 for and Xbox when DMC4 when multiplat.

Despite what you say, the Dreamcast was it's half dead competition, a bad competitor still makes for a competition regardless or not the Dreamcast was on it's dying days. I felt that the Dreamcast was still a competitor as it had a good number of great games and had features like online play, which was nearly unheard of for console games (I say nearly because the Saturn first introduced it with little response). It's just that Sega nickle and dimed their fans so much with all the add-ons and the quick release of the Saturn, and then the Saturn turning out to be a big disappointment versus the Playstation AND N64. This diminished Sega's image and I doubt Sega fans at that time wanted to buy into another Sega console just to turn out to be disappointed.

A lot of fans and gamers alike hold the Dreamcast in a very high regard, and I can't really argue against that. I bought one about 6 months ago and it's like arcade gaming central. The arcade ports and games run flawlessly and if you're a fighting game fan, it's great. Along with some great RPGs and some shooters and the PSO, don't forget that games like Space Channel and Sambo, and Chu Chu Rocket, the console had a great line up and good number of great games to warrant a purchase. It's sad to see that this console died so quickly because of Sega's poor business decisions regarding Sega CD, the 32X and the Saturn.

The Dreamcast died with the PS2 being the final nail in the coffin, as it came out, the PS2 was looked at as being a more powerful console that the Dreamcast (which was true) and being a DVD player (which was affordable at the time).

Sony's decision to release the PS2 when they did was genius, not luck. Not only did they have a year head start against Microsoft and Nintendo, but they also released it just as the Dreamcast started to show fault in sales, and in the advent of DVDs. It wasn't luck, it was just timing, likewise with the PSX (to which they released earlier than the N64 and after the horrible CD-I). The PS3 did NOT have this to it's advantage, the 360 came out a year earlier, and it was THE forefront for BluRay, the console was pushing the format instead of the PS2 riding the coattails of the DVD market. Luckily Sony won the format war against HD-DVD (to which Microsoft and Toshiba were pushing out).

I don't think Nintendo has their act necessarily straightened, it's just they pushed their console to a different market, to which MS and Sony is playing catch up.

A loss in the gaming world is very different from a loss in sport.

We weren't talking about the Wii, when talking about sales, everyone knows that the Wii is eclipsing the 360 and PS3 in terms of sales, so why bother mentioning it? We were mainly talking about the PS3 versus the 360.

There is no contradiction, thus there is no paradox, I suggest you read the definition of paradox before you start using 'fancy' english poetic language in your post. That and the beginning of your post makes no sense leading up to your 'paradox'. If you want to make mention of a contradiction I suggest you makes your post make more sense by making sentences relate to the next sentence.

PS3 CAN'T admit defeat. What the fuck are you smoking? This generation of gaming isn't over, it's still going. That and when considering last generation of console, the Xbox and Gamecube were VERY close to eachother in sales numbers, the Xbox came out in top of the Gamecube just barely. Even though the GC got in third place, I'd hardly call it "complete failure" because it had A LOT of games that made the console worth the purchase, it was a good console, just came out at the wrong time and didn't entice the players who wanted online features and the sort. Same thing goes for the N64, the console had TONS of great games that made the console worth the purchase.

I'll also go on the limb and say that the Saturn wasn't a complete failure either, in fact, it had a fair amount of success in Japan if I remember correctly.

You want to know what consoles were a complete failure? The Virtual Boy, Sega CD, 32X, Atari Jaguar, 3D0 etc etc. All these consoles had a small number of games that warranted the purchase of these consoles, that or they had problems with the system itself, or it was released at a bad time or was too expensive at the time.

Your definition of a complete failure is a complete failure.

It wasn't luck that Sony relied on, it was TIMING, as I mentioned above. How can Sony have a huge amount of success with TWO console out of the three they released? TIMING, the PSX and PS2 had it and succeeded because of it, your failure to notice this is baffling.

'Crushed'? I consider the PSP somewhat of a victory, as it's the most successful handheld besides Nintendo. Also the PSP isn't dead, there's still good games coming out. It's just on it's last legs, just like the DS, as the next generation of handhelds is about to come out. The DS turned out to be a victor because of features like the touch screen and price point, which hit right when comparing it to the PSP, which introduced almost nothing and cost 300 dollars.

The Wii is a whole different story (well, not really) just like the DS it was aiming at an entirely different market that Sony and Microsoft hadn't had their sights on yet. Which was people who don't normally play video games, it's accessibility and price point (which is also what the DS had to offer) is what made it sell like hot cakes.

 

Game of the Year awards ultimately go down to the player's opinion on the game, So just because one console's games has more GotY then another console's it doesn't mean that console is better. It just means there are more people who appreciate that console.

 

so people in part bought the ps2 for piracy reasons?! no, people bought the console because of the software first and not because of piracy reasons. if it was for piracy, then why did people still buy the gamecube, which was a console that didn't have piracy until near it's end [the viper chip or something]. even a better example then the ps2, gamecube and xbox. why didn't the mass suddenly go out and buy the dreamcast, which was the most easiest console to play back-ups?!

74 million wii and 38 million ps3. how and where will sony get the other half of the population? it is almost impossible now for sony to even consider on gaining grounds to the numbers of the wii. you can keep dreaming and saying that this generation isn't over and that there are new strategies that sony will implement to gain sales. but in the end, nintendo is ahead of the curve and sony won't be able to catch up. look at the ds and psp. are you suggesting that the psp isn't a failure when it's at 62 million while the nintendo ds is at 132 million?! the psp is a failure. two years ago, do you really believe that the psp would suddenly become successful when the nintendo ds were miles ahead?! i'm crossing fingers hoping that the psp will finally reach those numbers. maybe this year, the psp will get there. rofl!!

how do you know that sony got lucky?! during the nes to the present, how many game companies have entered and left the video game market?! several, from the philips cdi, panasonic 3do, apples pippen, neo geo, etc.... which of those companies are still around?! nintendo. even when nintendo weren't doing well and were dead last, they're still around. the fact that nintendo is still around and other video game makers who entered and left only means nintendo is the competition to beat. so the fact that sony succeeded on the ps1 and ps2 only suggest that it was luck. we can also look at the handheld video game market, which nintendo is the one to beat. the handheld sector is the only place that nintendo didn't lose focus on. on the handheld, just as on the console market, you had new entries who were making handheld products. those who entered and competed with nintendo were destined to fail. you had neo geo, gamegear, lynx, wonderswan and the list goes on, even the mighty and powerful psp and they all had a taste of nintendo. what happened?! they failed! how can sony fail on the handheld market but succeed in the console market? luck! sony got lucky because nintendo screwed up. nintendo didn't screw up once, but twice, which is the reason why the ps1 and ps2 were successful. what happened the third time? luck, draw or lose for the ps3?! you decide what 74 million and 38 million suggest!

natewlie says the sega saturn was a success?!! [I'll also go on the limb and say that the Saturn wasn't a complete failure either, in fact, it had a fair amount of success in Japan if I remember correctly.] i'm surprised no one is refuting this claim. do people really believe the saturn was a success?! rofl!

 

I take it you attribute success to coming first rather than meeting the company line. Unless it's Nintendo, then merely survival through a generation is a crushing victory that makes you the industry leader by default because you've been around since the SG-1000.

 

rofl!!!!!!!
it's not that they've been here a long time. it's rather that they've been here a long time and haven't gone out. atari, sega, and the many other companies that have come in and come out all have been here longer then nintendo and have succeeded during their time. but how and why is it that nintendo is still in the video game market even after two failed generation?! atari failed when the nes came out, came back with the atari jaguar and left again. nintendo are damn successful! atari was here a long time and look at where they are now. how come nintendo isn't in the same predicatment. the current console makers, microsoft and sony won't leave easily since they have a bigger pocket then any of the previous console makers that have lost. look at panasonic, for instance, with their 3do console. panasonic had a big lost to their wallet because they new when to cut short and new that it's expensive, which they understood that they didn''t have the resources [money] to fully support the game market. panasonic when compared to sony is a lot smaller. when we look at what sony have attempted to do with the ps3, they have lost a lot of money in supporting the ps3. sega, was only a video game company and their source of income was only in video games. sega had so many losses [one failed generation, saturn] that they cut short on the dreamcast. if sega had the money or support from someone who provided the money, then the dreamcast would have lived. so why is nintendo still around making consoles even after two failed generations while other previous console makers have left. it's because nintendo is the true competition. again, for sony to have succeed with their ps1 and ps2 consoles would suggest that they truly got luck as nintendo were busy screwing themselves up. we look at the wii and the handheld market, where nintendo is no longer screwing themselves and what do we see about sony?! sony's true face, a dead end in video game.

the company that is first is the company that has a future. the company that is last is the company that will leave. ps1 and ps2 were successful that sony went further with the ps3. if the ps1 and ps2 were failures, then that means it's time to leave. why would sony continue with a ps3, if suppose the ps1 and ps2 failed?! for sony to continue with a ps3, if suppose the ps1 and ps2 failed, means sony is being stupid. why would you continue something that will be a financial burden for the company?!

even the mighty apple lost to nintendo! the apple pippen.

 

Because they weren't failed generations? Less successful, sure.

Why isn't Nintendo like Atari, who licensed E.T back in 82 and in one year almost destroyed the Video Game industry? Who released the Atari Jaguar, the console with the single worst controller ever created for anything? Whose industry marketing team sucked so badly they could barely manage to scrape by with the 1 or 2 third-party developers it had? Whose in-house developers couldn't even cope with their own hardware and released drivel? Who tried to take shots by lying about it's power?

Nintendo isn't dead because in it's two "failed generations" (you keep using these words) it did not make a bad system. All those other systems you mentioned were horrible consoles that deserved to die, using parts that were far too expensive or angles that were far too obtuse or gimmicky. Not including the Dreamcast, of course, that was a good system, it just got crushed by superior marketing and hype.

 

I'm tired of debating with you, ultra because you don't seem to read my posts and you seem to be arguing against yourself and just reiterating points, changing a couple words and you manage to think that it's a good response to mine. You're cherry picking my posts, choosing what you can argue, committing strawman fallacies and just making shit up. Like always. If you're not going to bother making a rebuttal against my posts, then I might as well not even post. Any argument after this post that isn't related to this one, I'm straight up ignoring. When you decide to confront something that I directly stated, I will respond to it, anything that you make up, like the quote below this paragraph, I'm ignoring. This post is going to me, both arguing your post and claiming if it's relevant to my previous response.

If you read my response I never stated that anyone went out to buy a console to pirate games. In fact I agreed with you.

Read my last comment.

'We weren't talking about the Wii, when talking about sales, everyone knows that the Wii is eclipsing the 360 and PS3 in terms of sales, so why bother mentioning it? We were mainly talking about the PS3 versus the 360.'

'Crushed'? I consider the PSP somewhat of a victory, as it's the most successful handheld besides Nintendo.'

In fact, when comparing the PSP to the Atari Lynx, Gamegear, Neo Geo Pocket, the PSP is the most successful handheld right behind Nintendo's. It's enjoyed it's moment in the sun, now it's time to move on to the next gen of handhelds. It's not a failure as it does have the games to make it worth the purchase, and the sales eclipse anything made by the Gamegear, Neo Geo Pocket, Wonderswan, Lynx, etc.

Are you asking this to yourself? I'm honestly confused.

Hey, wasn't the CDi backed by Nintendo? Oh yeah, it was.

Neo Geo also had relative success in the arcade market at the time too. Too damn expensive for most people to buy at the time.

'Dead last'? You mean, right behind the Xbox? Which the Xbox sold maybe 100'000 more xboxes than Gamecubes? Or the N64's abysmal failure with games like Zelda, Mario 64, Banjo Kazooie, Golden Eye, or Perfect Dark? To which many of these games are mentioned on the top 10 video games ever list?

It's 2/3, it's not luck. The PSX and PS2 relied on timing to be successful, you also have nothing concrete really to rely on this argument. The PSX and PS2 came out just at the right time, and the PS3 hasn't means that Sony relied on timing to make their consoles successful. If the PS2 came out when the Xbox and Gamecube came out, it would be a different outcome with sales numbers being much closer.

The PSP did not fail, read above. It succeeded to some extent. You seem to think that the only way a console/handheld can 'win' is by being the number one in terms of sales, it doesn't work that way. From a gamer's standpoint, it's if the purchase of the gaming system's warrants the price of entry, which the PSP has the number of games that warrants a purchase of the PSP.

This is a case of any competition, you take advantage of the other person's weakness, your failure to acknowledge this is extremely pitiful. Nintendo waited for the last possible moment to release all their consoles, just so they can make the most amount of money they can with their previous console. The SNES, N64, Gamecube, and the Wii took a long time to release and they were always the last to the punch.

I also do not think it's fair to compare sales number from the Nintendo Wii to either the PS3 or 360, they both reach to different markets and the one Nintendo targeted had a much larger population, and they succeeded with it. Nintendo capitalized the demographic that the previous consoles and the 360 and PS3 neglected.

Success is a broad term, it means more than just being number one. I said it enjoyed a fair amount of success in Japan, I did not say it was a success overall.

This also shows that you didn't read what I said:
"It's just that Sega nickle and dimed their fans so much with all the add-ons and the quick release of the Saturn, and then the Saturn turning out to be a big disappointment versus the Playstation AND N64. This diminished Sega's image and I doubt Sega fans at that time wanted to buy into another Sega console just to turn out to be disappointed."

And what Devon said: I take it you attribute success to coming first rather than meeting the company line.

You have no clue what you're talking about, the NES came out after the video game crash of 1983 and 1984. It was the console to save video games. The Atari 'died' when Atari lost control of the games being released on their console which lead to over saturation of the market, and then Atari released ET, and then they sold their company which left the video game industry for two years until the NES came along. The Atari did not 'fail' when the NES came out, that's a straight up lie.

Panasonic had a large pocket at the time and now, they're an electronics company that enjoy a fair amount of success, just like Sony. Also the console wasn't only Panasonic, they left the 3D0 and Sanyo and Goldstar started manufacturing them afterwards.

Most consoles at launch are sold at a loss. The PSX, N64 were sold at a loss, the PS2, Xbox, and Gamecube were sold at a loss, the 360 and PS3 were sold at a loss (the Wii wasn't because it used last generation hardware, the Wii, it prints money). They eventually recoup the costs if they turn out successful, to which all of them have recouped the costs and the PS3 has enjoyed a profit right before the release of the slim model.

No it wouldn't of. If Sega was rich and had tons of money I doubt they would've made any other console past the Dreamcast. Sega screwed with their fans far too much in the past, the Dreamcast's death was mostly responsible by karmic justice from the Sega CD, 32X and Saturn. I doubt after that, that their fans had much patience with Sega at that point, especially since the Dreamcast would've had to survive against the other three competitors. At which point Sega would be way too far behind to think about releasing another console.

No, it's because Nintendo is persistent, it's been stated by Nintendo, that if the company were to go down and have the option to go either make just software or just go down, they'd go down (I wish I can find this quote).

You've given no reason for me to believe that the PSX and PS2 were successes were luck, you gave me no argument or support that it is in fact luck besides that the PS3 failed. Which is just as a good argument as saying "it's because I said so!", my two year olds can make a better case then that.

Holy christ, I fucking laughed SO hard at the first part. You came in here to tell me that when the company's first, it has a future? You mentioned that the N64 and Gamecubes were 'complete failures' (it's what you said), yet you say that the company that is first has a future? It's like you don't even know what you're saying anymore.

The level of contradiction in this little statement is through the roof and it's impossible to believe that you even mean that in any possible way.

Hell, this scenario isn't even related to anything. 'If supposed the PS1 and PS2 failed'? It didn't happen! Why are you even mentioning this 'what if?' scenario when it doesn't even relate to the discussion at hand!

The 'mighty Apple'? Apple wasn't mighty at the time of the release of the Pippen, I recommend you read up Apple's history, Apple didn't grow into the giant you know now for quite a while after the Pippen.


I'm also surprised that even after Hypr called you out on it, that you still don't have understandable grammar and a substantial amount of spelling mistakes. If you want to make your arguments actually mean something in context of a debate, then you should go through the effort of correcting grammar and spelling. Spelling and grammar give the reader the impression that you know what you're talking about and make it easier to read, to which you don't have any of this and your posts suffer from being hard to understand and you don't know what you're talking about 50% of the time.

 

I was about to contribute something to this thread, but it looks like Devon and Natewlie are doing a great job without my support.

It's like I'm late to the piñata party, in which Devon and Natewlie already have bats in their hands, and have taken a lot of clubbing blows to Ultra, who is hanging on a tree and is busted wide open. And instead of spewing candy, Ultra spews bullshit onto the floor.

 

I'd love for you to chime in at some point, as you made ultra shut up at some point in this topic for a while. Although before this topic got resurrected, it seemed like others and I shut him by his stupid topics.

And, lol.

I was going to acknowledge your post Devon, but I was almost done mine.

 

The truth is they all over their advantages over each other, there is no point starting console wars when all it really comes down to is:
1. What you can afford.
2. What type of games you are looking for.

Many people say that Wii is a shit console, I owned one but didn't really enjoy it as much as i used to as I didn't enjoy the games despite the great gameplay they had as that is what games for Nintendo consoles aim for Gameplay > Graphics.

Most PS3 games often vary between the quality of gameplay, the graphics are only better on PS3 because developers choose to make them that way also so they are more compatible with the Blu-Ray quality.

As with 360, it contains a large variety of games with average or good graphics and considerably good gameplay, also with the upcoming Kinect software for the 360 it will integrate more interaction and motion sensing as all gaming companies seem to be aiming for.

 

soccer is the most successful sport in the world. many nations around the world know what is soccer, they play the sport and watch soccer tournaments on tv or in their local stadiums. so we can say that soccer is the number one sport in the world. if we use this idea and apply it to the saturn, does it make sense?! absolutely because american football is more successful in america that it's overshadowing soccer worldwide, even though american football is only popular in america. the saturn people are defending their turf stating that the saturn wasn't a failure as natewlie have said. knowing this site is an international community, all thos who like soccer do agree that american football is better then soccer.

in sports, do we care about the first, second, third or last team/person?! i think we care about the losers more then the winners as it's not about being number 1 and it's more about .... who get's the glory, honor and pride, the one who is first, second, third or the last team/person?! the last person gets the glory, honor and pride! clearly because that is what devon, natewlie and hypr have agreed upon! it's funny know one refutes this arguement. i guess the people of romulation likes losers then winners. but me, as stated by natewlie and devon, i'm more about who is first. if you're first you win and if you're last, you lose! let's see who backs this idea of being first?! people who don't back it up means they are losers!

 

What's funny is how Sony has ads, and would advertise that the PS3 is the ONLY system that can do 3D. Now 360 is doing it (well they had it back when Avatar was released) without a mandatory FW update like the PS3 needs.

Also I noticed on their MOVE commercials, they say the MOVE tracks your ENTIRE body. But all it tracks is the the MOVE wand (technically the ball at the end of the MOVE.) Sony needs to revise all their ads to actually make them true.

But I think the bigger problem is that there are millions of people who actually believe their ads.

off topic much?

 

I don't even get why people are arguing, there wasn't a winner in the last 4-6 years anyway D:

 

Why are you always saying shit about PS3,psmove is fine,at least it got released...not like kinect's project Milo...which was FAKE!Lying is not funny anymore