Does MS even care anymore?..

[QUOTE="MizFitAwesome"]

[QUOTE="Alpha-Male22"]

Why are you saying stuff we already know to prove a point that doesn't exist?

Alpha-Male22

Nope renting is still the #1 way to determine game quality because the person renting can determine if the game is quality based on his tastes, not blindly following what a reviewer tells him, which is what you cows keep shoving down everyones throats.Your continued poor attempts at spin are humourous at best...

Not only did you not read what I said, but you totally ignored it, offered no response, and chose to stubbornly close your ears and keep shouting "Renting is best, cows are the worst!"

The only thing humorous is how you avoid my response.

I said nothing about renting a game being in any way bad-- personal experience is best, but I clearly stated that not having personal experience doesn't devoid the numerous positive experiences the many reviewers have put up :lol:

And the irony is still that you yourself have used reviews to prove a point. Since your not interested in actually discussing the issue, I have nothing more to add. If your not going to attempt a healthy discussion, and if you are going to keep stating the same things I have already responded to, there is no point in talking to you.

Of course, I expected nothing less.

Gee I guess you failed to read the thread you attempted to own me and all responses. I never supported the idea of using review scores. The TC in that thread used gamerankings in an attempt to prove Sony was catching up, whereas I used Metacritic which blew his OP logic out of the water and then questioned why he used GR and not MC for the obvious reason that GR gave the PS3 a bigger mathematical advantage. There are no positive experienses reviewers put up, trying to say a review is good for making a choice is the worst reason to make the choice. You know it, yet fail to admit, just continue to spin...

[QUOTE="Alpha-Male22"]

[QUOTE="MizFitAwesome"]

Nope renting is still the #1 way to determine game quality because the person renting can determine if the game is quality based on his tastes, not blindly following what a reviewer tells him, which is what you cows keep shoving down everyones throats.Your continued poor attempts at spin are humourous at best...

MizFitAwesome

Not only did you not read what I said, but you totally ignored it, offered no response, and chose to stubbornly close your ears and keep shouting "Renting is best, cows are the worst!"

The only thing humorous is how you avoid my response.

I said nothing about renting a game being in any way bad-- personal experience is best, but I clearly stated that not having personal experience doesn't devoid the numerous positive experiences the many reviewers have put up :lol:

And the irony is still that you yourself have used reviews to prove a point. Since your not interested in actually discussing the issue, I have nothing more to add. If your not going to attempt a healthy discussion, and if you are going to keep stating the same things I have already responded to, there is no point in talking to you.

Of course, I expected nothing less.

Gee I guess you failed to read the thread you attempted to own me and all responses. I never supported the idea of using review scores. The TC in that thread used gamerankings in an attempt to prove Sony was catching up, whereas I used Metacritic which blew his OP logic out of the water and then questioned why he used GR and not MC for the obvious reason that GR gave the PS3 a bigger mathematical advantage. There are no positive experienses reviewers put up, trying to say a review is good for making a choice is the worst reason to make the choice. You know it, yet fail to admit, just continue to spin...

Far from it. Renting games that are not good is just as bad as a way to make a choice, and it blows your money.

And this isn't about making a choice.

You constantly try to put down PS3 exclusives based on sales-- if sales are bad, the game is not that great.The reasoning is simple: the ratings are great, they are personal opinions of other readers, and I can easily point to it to show you that a game has received a great amount of critical acclaim. Playing the game yourself is great, but that doesn't invalidate the score, nor does it make one a blind follower: people don't say "the game is great". That implies personal experience. When appealing to reviews the implication is that the game has been played by the reviewer, he has found it to be great, so it's clear that the game has redeeming qualities to it.

And I'd like an actual response instead of you cherry picking what I said.

Regarding the GR/MC thread, you make your point by using the scores of a game-- if the scores didn't matter to you, there's no reason to use MC to disrpove the TC, unless you find the reviews have some merit.

Again, you cherry pick my responses and would like a response to what I have said and asked-- I fail to see how you make two main points (rentals give you personal opinion and PS3 games have bad sales) yet fail to address the issue of what I was mainly attacking: the fact that you despise PS3 exclusives and use sales to justify its lack of success.

Again, here is what you said:

Actually Sony is 8 AAA behind 360

http://www.metacritic.com/games/xbox360/scores/

http://www.metacritic.com/games/ps3/scores/ "

"Don't worry this is just a sad joke thread that I debunked a few responses ago. TC is only using GR because it gives him a mathematical advantage and then trying to rewrite SW rules. Metacritic states 360 has 22 AAA and PS3 only has 14, but we wouldn't dare use that..."

"So the Gameranking scores are factual but the Metacritic scores aren't?"

Regarding the last quote, it seems clear you find the Metacritic scores to be factual-- it wouldn't make sense to say the MC ones aren't factual-- if you truly despised using reviews, then you wouldn't be USING them to combat the TC. Why use fire to fight fire when you can trounce the TC with water and tell him that reviews don't indicate quality of a game?

Oh, and I'll likely respond tomorrow since I'm studying now-- but again, if your only going to cherry pick a few things out of my response and ignore the rest, there's no point in discussing things with you since you would show no interest in actually discussing the main issue of sales= quality vs. reviews= quality

Don't worry Microsoft isn't going anywhere and the same goes for Nintendo and Sony also all companies after money it not just Microsoft. p.s Microsoft has AAAE this year it call Halo odst and I'm glad Demon Soul got 9.0 which it deserve.

future ps3 owner next month

Far from it. Renting games that are not good is just as bad as a way to make a choice, and it blows your money.

And this isn't about making a choice.

You constantly try to put down PS3 exclusives based on sales-- if sales are bad, the game is not that great.The reasoning is simple: the ratings are great, they are personal opinions of other readers, and I can easily point to it to show you that a game has received a great amount of critical acclaim. Playing the game yourself is great, but that doesn't invalidate the score, nor does it make one a blind follower: people don't say "the game is great". That implies personal experience. When appealing to reviews the implication is that the game has been played by the reviewer, he has found it to be great, so it's clear that the game has redeeming qualities to it.

And I'd like an actual response instead of you cherry picking what I said.

Regarding the GR/MC thread, you make your point by using the scores of a game-- if the scores didn't matter to you, there's no reason to use MC to disrpove the TC, unless you find the reviews have some merit.

Again, you cherry pick my responses and would like a response to what I have said and asked-- I fail to see how you make two main points (rentals give you personal opinion and PS3 games have bad sales) yet fail to address the issue of what I was mainly attacking: the fact that you despise PS3 exclusives and use sales to justify its lack of success.

Oh, and I'll likely respond tomorrow since I'm studying now-- but again, if your only going to cherry pick a few things out of my response and ignore the rest, there's no point in discussing things with you since you would show no interest in actually discussing the main issue of sales= quality vs. reviews= quality

Alpha-Male22

Because it's more then obvious that if the game were is high qulaity as you cows want everyone to beleive it is, it would sell, period.

[QUOTE="MizFitAwesome"]

[QUOTE="Alpha-Male22"]

Not only did you not read what I said, but you totally ignored it, offered no response, and chose to stubbornly close your ears and keep shouting "Renting is best, cows are the worst!"

The only thing humorous is how you avoid my response.

I said nothing about renting a game being in any way bad-- personal experience is best, but I clearly stated that not having personal experience doesn't devoid the numerous positive experiences the many reviewers have put up :lol:

And the irony is still that you yourself have used reviews to prove a point. Since your not interested in actually discussing the issue, I have nothing more to add. If your not going to attempt a healthy discussion, and if you are going to keep stating the same things I have already responded to, there is no point in talking to you.

Of course, I expected nothing less.

Alpha-Male22

Gee I guess you failed to read the thread you attempted to own me and all responses. I never supported the idea of using review scores. The TC in that thread used gamerankings in an attempt to prove Sony was catching up, whereas I used Metacritic which blew his OP logic out of the water and then questioned why he used GR and not MC for the obvious reason that GR gave the PS3 a bigger mathematical advantage. There are no positive experienses reviewers put up, trying to say a review is good for making a choice is the worst reason to make the choice. You know it, yet fail to admit, just continue to spin...

Far from it. Renting games that are not good is just as bad as a way to make a choice, and it blows your money.

And this isn't about making a choice.

You constantly try to put down PS3 exclusives based on sales-- if sales are bad, the game is not that great.The reasoning is simple: the ratings are great, they are personal opinions of other readers, and I can easily point to it to show you that a game has received a great amount of critical acclaim. Playing the game yourself is great, but that doesn't invalidate the score, nor does it make one a blind follower: people don't say "the game is great". That implies personal experience. When appealing to reviews the implication is that the game has been played by the reviewer, he has found it to be great, so it's clear that the game has redeeming qualities to it.

And I'd like an actual response instead of you cherry picking what I said.

Regarding the GR/MC thread, you make your point by using the scores of a game-- if the scores didn't matter to you, there's no reason to use MC to disrpove the TC, unless you find the reviews have some merit.

Again, you cherry pick my responses and would like a response to what I have said and asked-- I fail to see how you make two main points (rentals give you personal opinion and PS3 games have bad sales) yet fail to address the issue of what I was mainly attacking: the fact that you despise PS3 exclusives and use sales to justify its lack of success.

Again, here is what you said:

Actually Sony is 8 AAA behind 360

http://www.metacritic.com/games/xbox360/scores/

http://www.metacritic.com/games/ps3/scores/ "

"Don't worry this is just a sad joke thread that I debunked a few responses ago. TC is only using GR because it gives him a mathematical advantage and then trying to rewrite SW rules. Metacritic states 360 has 22 AAA and PS3 only has 14, but we wouldn't dare use that..."

"So the Gameranking scores are factual but the Metacritic scores aren't?"

Regarding the last quote, it seems clear you find the Metacritic scores to be factual-- it wouldn't make sense to say the MC ones aren't factual-- if you truly despised using reviews, then you wouldn't be USING them to combat the TC. Why use fire to fight fire when you can trounce the TC with water and tell him that reviews don't indicate quality of a game?

Oh, and I'll likely respond tomorrow since I'm studying now-- but again, if your only going to cherry pick a few things out of my response and ignore the rest, there's no point in discussing things with you since you would show no interest in actually discussing the main issue of sales= quality vs. reviews= quality

I hope you are studying political science, since you have the spin cycle working great....

[QUOTE="Alpha-Male22"]

Far from it. Renting games that are not good is just as bad as a way to make a choice, and it blows your money.

And this isn't about making a choice.

You constantly try to put down PS3 exclusives based on sales-- if sales are bad, the game is not that great.The reasoning is simple: the ratings are great, they are personal opinions of other readers, and I can easily point to it to show you that a game has received a great amount of critical acclaim. Playing the game yourself is great, but that doesn't invalidate the score, nor does it make one a blind follower: people don't say "the game is great". That implies personal experience. When appealing to reviews the implication is that the game has been played by the reviewer, he has found it to be great, so it's clear that the game has redeeming qualities to it.

And I'd like an actual response instead of you cherry picking what I said.

Regarding the GR/MC thread, you make your point by using the scores of a game-- if the scores didn't matter to you, there's no reason to use MC to disrpove the TC, unless you find the reviews have some merit.

Again, you cherry pick my responses and would like a response to what I have said and asked-- I fail to see how you make two main points (rentals give you personal opinion and PS3 games have bad sales) yet fail to address the issue of what I was mainly attacking: the fact that you despise PS3 exclusives and use sales to justify its lack of success.

Oh, and I'll likely respond tomorrow since I'm studying now-- but again, if your only going to cherry pick a few things out of my response and ignore the rest, there's no point in discussing things with you since you would show no interest in actually discussing the main issue of sales= quality vs. reviews= quality

MizFitAwesome

Because it's more then obvious that if the game were is high qulaity as you cows want everyone to beleive it is, it would sell, period.

:lol: Oh boy. I think this one speaks for itself.

Again, stop cherry picking-- and games on the PS3 do sell ;)

Your response that it doesn't sell or doesn't sell well is vague. Are you expecting Halo-like figures? And how many times does it need to be said that the limited amount of PS3 systems sold and the lack of advertising doesn't help inform the casual/average gamer?

Cows aren't telling anyone what to believe-- they refer to review scores which show good results-- especially if people they are trying to boast to never played the game. A reviewers review > a guy who has never played the game. It's entirely justifiable to tell lemmings in this System Wars that a game is good by indicating that the reviews have been great. That's not blind-- no one is using their own opinion which they CAN do, but if one has not played the game himself, he REFERS to reviews to show what OTHERS have thought about the game to show that the game has been CRITICALLY ACCLAIMED. It gives an INDICATION to the game! Telling someone it sold great doesn't say anything about the game, certainly not anything in solidity.

And please show me why this is so obvious. Or are you just using what a few extreme cows say to bash using reviews/PS3 sales?

*Bashes head against wall* Oh Miz. I'm done for the night-- hopefully you make an actual response to what I said instead of ducking my responses in the last page-- I'm not wasting my time otherwise because you have ignored a lot of what I posted with simple one liners that either repeat the same thing I have responded to or say something even vaguer.

Good Night and oh yeah, what a win over Kofi Kingston this past Monday for the U.S. Title.

What M$ cares about and will always care about only is MONEY!

jakehouston88

[QUOTE="Alpha-Male22"]

[QUOTE="MizFitAwesome"]

Gee I guess you failed to read the thread you attempted to own me and all responses. I never supported the idea of using review scores. The TC in that thread used gamerankings in an attempt to prove Sony was catching up, whereas I used Metacritic which blew his OP logic out of the water and then questioned why he used GR and not MC for the obvious reason that GR gave the PS3 a bigger mathematical advantage. There are no positive experienses reviewers put up, trying to say a review is good for making a choice is the worst reason to make the choice. You know it, yet fail to admit, just continue to spin...

MizFitAwesome

Oh, and I'll likely respond tomorrow since I'm studying now-- but again, if your only going to cherry pick a few things out of my response and ignore the rest, there's no point in discussing things with you since you would show no interest in actually discussing the main issue of sales= quality vs. reviews= quality

I hope you are studying political science, since you have the spin cycle working great....

By all means, if I have misunderstood, elaborate. Sitting there telling me "Cows do this, u spin that, PS3 sales suck" are all statements without any conclusive point-- if your going to sit there making unsupported claims there's no reason for me to feel guilty over anything. I'm here to dialogue with you because you make a pretty bold claim-- but if you aren't interested in argumentation (which you can disprove to me buy not ignoring my earlier posts and responding to the premises I made), I'll leave you alone.

Good night-- I've delayed my essay long enough and have to put something together regarding Karl Marx and his theories on alienation.

MS is playing for third place in the console race.LOXO7

Ummm...As much as Im done with MS this gen after so many failed consoles....MS is far from behind no matter what any of you think. Every person I know has a 360. Every time I ask if someone plays games on line...THEY say YES..I have LIVE..Even on tv...You see on espn and other shows talking about playing madden on 360 LIVE OR you see them promoting it in some way. More people honestly play the 360 and LIVE then any other console out.

MS is sorry as $%^&!!! for their sorry faulty console. BUT MS has also done a brilliant job promoting the hunk of junk too..Everyone who thinks of playing games on line have switched from instantly thinking PC to thinking XBOX..Its just plain and simple.

well MS definitely lost this year.. gamewise.. they will come back strong next year.

What M$ cares about and will always care about only is MONEY!

jakehouston88

well MS definitely lost this year.. gamewise.. they will come back strong next year.

___gamemaster__

What M$ cares about and will always care about only is MONEY!

jakehouston88

[QUOTE="nunovlopes"]

[QUOTE="Aku101"]

No. Sony willingly invested billions of dollars into the PS3 and was losing money on each console sold to please the gamers by releasing the best games this gen exclusively on the PS3 because it can only be done on the ps3.

They are not greedy at all, plus their hardware doesn't break down so they actually bothered to make a good hardware architecture to make sure we gamers get the best product available even at Sony's expense

MS and Nintendo are greedy not Sony.

mattacular

You're pretty naive aren't you?

The sole purpose of every company is to make money, period. Not to please their customers, not to please the government, just make a profit, and that's it. Of course, if you don't please your customers you won't make any money, unless you have a monopoly and people are forced to buy from you, but the point is companies exist to make a profit, and EVERYTHING they do is with that goal in mind.

Sometimes companies will loose money on certain products because of business reasons, like wanting to crush the competition, gaining market share, etc., but the long-term goal is always the same, make money.

well MS definitely lost this year.. gamewise.. they will come back strong next year.

___gamemaster__

[QUOTE="pyromaniac223"][QUOTE="jakehouston88"]

What M$ cares about and will always care about only is MONEY!

No. Sony willingly invested billions of dollars into the PS3 and was losing money on each console sold to please the gamers by releasing the best games this gen exclusively on the PS3 because it can only be done on the ps3.

They are not greedy at all, plus their hardware doesn't break down so they actually bothered to make a good hardware architecture to make sure we gamers get the best product available even at Sony's expense

MS and Nintendo are greedy not Sony.

Im sure they dont care about the fact only AAAs, AAAAs and exclusives count in SW. I have had a lot of fun with games like Halo Wars, Shadow Complex, ODST, etc and cant wait for Forza3, Left4Dead2 and Episodes of Liberty City...Also next year looks awesome for 360

I find impressive how sony fanboys bash 360 using "sony care about their costumers" argument!! :shock:

Did they in a sudden forget that Sony lasted more that 2 years to make an acceptable price for PS3, lied about PS3´s capabilities like any other company ever did and still offers a console with 300 less games like its direct competitor???

[QUOTE="pyromaniac223"][QUOTE="Aku101"]

I am happy with my ps3 because sony cares about me and sony is still in business. :S

Aku101

How do they not care about me? They constantly release good games that please me and have created a superior product in comparison to the competition even at their own loss just to please me. If that doesn't show about caring then what does? Sony is not greedy.

They don't care about you, all they see you as is another person who is willing to pay for the console or the games. They see you as money. At the end of the day every company is out there to make money, apart from charities, and Sony definitely isn't a charity.

[QUOTE="pyromaniac223"][QUOTE="Aku101"]

I am happy with my ps3 because sony cares about me and sony is still in business. :S

Aku101

How do they not care about me? They constantly release good games that please me and have created a superior product in comparison to the competition even at their own loss just to please me. If that doesn't show about caring then what does? Sony is not greedy.

Ya know what you're right, thats probably why Sony don't market any of their games, they didn't do it for the sales, they did it for the love. Tell you what, i'm with you, contact Sony and tell them you need a great big hug... their coming, OH YES THEIR COMING.

Sony GUY "hows my favrite widdle fan, you good, yeah ya are (lifts your chin with teh Sony finger of joy), who da champ? YOU DA CHAMP, that's right"

Don't worry champ, me and you are gonna prove Sonys love, because SONY ARE THE BEST.

YEAH!! YEAH!!

Just because PS3 has had a great year doesn't mean MS is somehow losing the will to fight. We only need to go back to the start of this generation to see that.

Alpha-Male22

I called MS to confirm they don't care "anymore" and was told your wrong :shock: ...

They never cared !!! :lol: