[QUOTE="phantas777"]Comments you can always count on from a PS3 fanboy...
1. "But the PS3 is cheaper than the 360 when you add up..." - No. When anyone walks into a store they see $599.99 compared to $399.99. That's what they see, and rarely will someone actually buy the wifi adapter, HD-DVD, etc. that you guys always list because they are nothing more than options. You can keep this up all you want, but you always look like fools. If they aren't required, then not everyone is going to get them, which throws this argument entirely out of the door. And come on, the PS3 only comes with RCA cables for crying out loud.
This is not a fair assessement. You are bending the question, which is which costs more, in 360's favour. Yes, there are many options and accessories and extra costs for the 360 (some of which weren't mentioned by the cost assessment in euros). When you add them up, the 360 is more costly than the ps3. It is unfair to include these because they are not necessary. But it is equally unfair to just compare the price tags on the consoles themselves. The fair assessment is in between both, perhaps the average. I think it is fair to say that the 360 is more costly than psn if you include $200 for xbl, which is fair game since lemmings always advertise it as the selling point of the 360. (and it is...)
2. "But PSN is free where you got to spend all this money on XBL. After four years, it's 200 dollars!" And they always blow that way out of proportion don't they? Like if you decide you want XBL, you have to pay $200 all upfront before it will even work. It's so stupid, XBL is a little over $4 a month, pure and simple. And you can cancel your subscription if you need to, you're not obligated to anything like the four years Sony fanboys always throw out there. Thing is, Sony has no idea what to do with PSN and you know it. Compared to XBL it flat out stinks and I'll happily pay $4 a month if it means I don't have to deal with something as crappy as PSN.
This is an extension of logic that lemmings cling to constantly, for every facet. Yes, the 360 has had a year headstart over the other 2 consoles. That means more games (most of which will be forgotten by the end of the gen btw). Yes that means more users. More users means a better online experience. That advantage errodes over time, and to describe it those terms is a vast oversimplification. Consoles are a long term investment. Yes, an important factor is games out right now, but games out later is equally as important. PSN will improve by huge margins once the user base increases and sony gets the oppurtunity to update its online service like microsoft has already so many times. Don't forget Little Big Planet as well. Any online gamer worth his/her salt will at least be intrigued by this game. It will bring prestige to PSN.
3. "But soon we'll have Home and it'll be better than XBL!" Yeah... Home... ownage indeed! I mean, who would of thought? You got an older userbase because you're so set on trying to be this big high def dominator and you think these users are going to go crazy over a Sims-****online system?? Any of you guys really going to go virtual dates to the online movie theatre or go to onlilne parties at someones virtual mansion by the lake to jam to music they pick out when in reality you're sitting on your couch alone? "I'm not going to pay for any of it, just going to use it to play games!" My point exactly, it's completely unnecessary and doesn't fit the usebase at all.
That is biased speculation. You don't know what people will like. Sure, its "unnecessary" but everything about video games is "unnecessary", okay. Many people will love Home, and everybody will give it a shot. It's free you know, which speaks volumes to Home's and PSN's accessibility. Plus, it looks like it will have mild interaction with LBP (people inviting others to come see their creations, etc.), and if you dont think that matters then you are narrow minded.
4. "The PS3 is going to have all these games soon (post list here)." Again with the "soon" - as in not now. Like you spent all this money on a system to... wait. And you're still waiting. And why do always post EVERY SINGLE EXCLUSIVE announced? You know half those games, such as half the games out on the system now, will suck hardcore? Do you see 360 users saying, "yeah but with the 360 you have all these games..." and list Bomberman Act Zero? Keep it real, I know you'll have some games to look forward to - but not every single one you always list, since all you're doing it just trying to make the biggest list possible and it always shows. BTW, I love it when you throw in God of War 3, like it's going to be out in the next year or something - 2010 at the earliest. But who am I kidding, that's "soon" like everything else.
In terms of games, the main difference between 360 and ps3 is that 360 users are anticipating multiplats (eg GTA4 and Halo3--not sure about halo exactly, its PC as well right?), while ps3 users are anticipating exclusives (LBP, GoW3, Shadows of collossus, MGS4, etc). You can list the exclusives that you personally want on 360, but they are not widely known. 360 is basically the cheapest way to get GTA4 and Halo3 in the public's eyes. I'm oversimplifying a little, but its the basic trend. BTW, GoW3 counts. You're allowed to mention future games, since a console is a long term investment. Like I said, your using logic that lemmings cling to in order to bias the arg in your favour.
5. "But the PS3 is the more powerful system." Be it as it may, can you still show me any game that looks better on the PS3 than the 360? Oblivion was released a year later on it, and I see people even debating that one. Fact of the matter is, the PS3 appears to be a tough system to make games for - either that or it really isn't as powerful. And I know, this is where you tell me about the new developer that will come out soon that will change all of that. Once again, with something that you really have no clue about, and are just saying that it will change it all because Sony tells you it will. Once again, with the "soon."
We have no idea which is the most powerful, but we do know that bluray is superior to DVD9 discs. What's gears SP, like 20 hours max? If you want larger games you'll have to switch discs, and its looking like that may plague the 360 in the later stages of the console when standards for content and graphics increase. It's not that bad an inconvenience, but its worth mentioning. What is definitely unfortunate is that the 360 in UNABLE to make a large, non-linear game with large open environments unless it makes huge sacrifices elsewhere.  You can't switch discs in a non-linear game-it almost completely errodes the experience.
6. "But the PS3 has Blu-Ray, and Blu-Ray will dominate." Dominate what? HD-DVD? Yeah, I agree. But DVD? Maybe in 8 years from now - but HDTV will have to completely take over before that even happens, and there still will be people that are perfectly fine with how DVD looks and don't want to buy a Blu-Ray player or a PS3 right after dropping a grand on a HDTV. And who's saying there won't be something better on the market by then? And in 8 years, I promise you the PS3 will start looking pretty outdated and you'll want something new.
Do you think that on the 8 year anniversary bluray will go from nothing to everything? Of course not. It will be a slow integration into blurray movies, and as it escalates ps3 will benefit more and more. Even if blurray never becomes mainstream, it will still move a lot of ps3s. It will probably never be as big a factor as the DVD player in the ps2, but definitely a big factor.
Anything else you want to say to prove me wrong? dittoGunSmith1_basic
Log in to comment