I Dont Think PS3 Users Should Be able to use the "One Year" Excuse.

But it does work to the fact that devs have had more time to work on 360 games over PS3 games, and dev kits were out for longer, in a time where games can take up to about 2 years or so to make, the one year headstart gave several developers indication of where they should start their products, and it leads down to other cycles from there.

While it was sony's choice to give it such a price, the Wii had a completely different audiance and appeal.

But it does work to the fact that devs have had more time to work on 360 games over PS3 games, and dev kits were out for longer, in a time where games can take up to about 2 years or so to make, the one year headstart gave several developers indication of where they should start their products, and it leads down to other cycles from there.

While it was sony's choice to give it such a price, the Wii had a completely different audiance and appeal.

But it does work to the fact that devs have had more time to work on 360 games over PS3 games, and dev kits were out for longer, in a time where games can take up to about 2 years or so to make, the one year headstart gave several developers indication of where they should start their products, and it leads down to other cycles from there.

While it was sony's choice to give it such a price, the Wii had a completely different audiance and appeal.

110million

yeah but sony also had their ps2 audience which one last gen. but they lost that audience when they heard the price or what not. then they decided to buy a wii, or 360, but yes i do agree with your dev point

Nintendo came out one year later, and is dominating the market, and the 360 paid the price with the one year headstart because of the faulty hardeware (which is going to be gone with the new jasper chip coming soon), and lets get one thing Straight, Sony is last Because of the poor desicions they made upon launch. THEY decided to make the console $600, did they have to include Blu-ray? NO they chose to do that, they could have just gone with good ol DVD. So Sony is last because of Sony, not because of MicrosoftSaintsRowSam

If the 360 beat PS3, then no -- cows can't use the one-year excuse.

If PS3 beats 360, cows are welcome to rub the embarassing truth in all our faces -- that the 360 started 1 year earlier, had a bigger library, a "better" library, and was always cheaper.

Nintendo came out one year later, and is dominating the market, and the 360 paid the price with the one year headstart because of the faulty hardeware (which is going to be gone with the new jasper chip coming soon), and lets get one thing Straight, Sony is last Because of the poor desicions they made upon launch. THEY decided to make the console $600, did they have to include Blu-ray? NO they chose to do that, they could have just gone with good ol DVD. So Sony is last because of Sony, not because of MicrosoftSaintsRowSam

Maybe it is maybe it isn't the end. I've heard so many things of how the elite was "the end of RROD" or that falcon was the end and it wasn't. And besides even if the RROD is finally resolved it doesn't take away the damage that has already been done.

[QUOTE="SaintsRowSam"]Nintendo came out one year later, and is dominating the market, and the 360 paid the price with the one year headstart because of the faulty hardeware (which is going to be gone with the new jasper chip coming soon), and lets get one thing Straight, Sony is last Because of the poor desicions they made upon launch. THEY decided to make the console $600, did they have to include Blu-ray? NO they chose to do that, they could have just gone with good ol DVD. So Sony is last because of Sony, not because of MicrosoftKoalakommander

If the 360 beat PS3, then no -- cows can't use the one-year excuse.

If PS3 beats 360, cows are welcome to rub the embarassing truth in all our faces -- that the 360 started 1 year earlier, had a bigger library, a "better" library, and was always cheaper.

Nintendo came out one year later, and is dominating the market, and the 360 paid the price with the one year headstart because of the faulty hardeware (which is going to be gone with the new jasper chip coming soon), and lets get one thing Straight, Sony is last Because of the poor desicions they made upon launch. THEY decided to make the console $600, did they have to include Blu-ray? NO they chose to do that, they could have just gone with good ol DVD. So Sony is last because of Sony, not because of MicrosoftSaintsRowSam

1 year is a long time

[QUOTE="Koalakommander"]

[QUOTE="SaintsRowSam"]Nintendo came out one year later, and is dominating the market, and the 360 paid the price with the one year headstart because of the faulty hardeware (which is going to be gone with the new jasper chip coming soon), and lets get one thing Straight, Sony is last Because of the poor desicions they made upon launch. THEY decided to make the console $600, did they have to include Blu-ray? NO they chose to do that, they could have just gone with good ol DVD. So Sony is last because of Sony, not because of MicrosoftSaintsRowSam

If the 360 beat PS3, then no -- cows can't use the one-year excuse.

If PS3 beats 360, cows are welcome to rub the embarassing truth in all our faces -- that the 360 started 1 year earlier, had a bigger library, a "better" library, and was always cheaper.

It started with games like DOA4 and PGR3, along with Splinter Cell games (i think), and even if they had a bad first year -- they still had 1 more year up on Wii and PS3 which is why it's leading PS3 in sales and is why it has been getting so many timed exlcusives, and stolen exclusives.

So the argument remains

[QUOTE="SaintsRowSam"][QUOTE="Koalakommander"]

[QUOTE="SaintsRowSam"]Nintendo came out one year later, and is dominating the market, and the 360 paid the price with the one year headstart because of the faulty hardeware (which is going to be gone with the new jasper chip coming soon), and lets get one thing Straight, Sony is last Because of the poor desicions they made upon launch. THEY decided to make the console $600, did they have to include Blu-ray? NO they chose to do that, they could have just gone with good ol DVD. So Sony is last because of Sony, not because of MicrosoftKoalakommander

If the 360 beat PS3, then no -- cows can't use the one-year excuse.

If PS3 beats 360, cows are welcome to rub the embarassing truth in all our faces -- that the 360 started 1 year earlier, had a bigger library, a "better" library, and was always cheaper.

It started with games like DOA4 and PGR3, along with Splinter Cell games (i think), and even if they had a bad first year -- they still had 1 more year up on Wii and PS3 which is why it's leading PS3 in sales and is why it has been getting so many timed exlcusives, and stolen exclusives.

So the argument remains

DOA 4 was pretty much garbage to me, and the 360 is getting timed exclusives because devs dont have a hard time with the 360 and ofcourse MS paid them, and are you saying if you were MS you wouldent care to touch any exclusive Sony would have?

I Dont Think PS3 Users Should Be able to use the "One Year" Excuse. SaintsRowSam

[QUOTE="SaintsRowSam"]I Dont Think PS3 Users Should Be able to use the "One Year" Excuse. Bubblehash

way to go on speaking for yourself, unlike you i was simply speaking for myself

[QUOTE="Koalakommander"]

[QUOTE="SaintsRowSam"][QUOTE="Koalakommander"]

[QUOTE="SaintsRowSam"]Nintendo came out one year later, and is dominating the market, and the 360 paid the price with the one year headstart because of the faulty hardeware (which is going to be gone with the new jasper chip coming soon), and lets get one thing Straight, Sony is last Because of the poor desicions they made upon launch. THEY decided to make the console $600, did they have to include Blu-ray? NO they chose to do that, they could have just gone with good ol DVD. So Sony is last because of Sony, not because of MicrosoftSaintsRowSam

If the 360 beat PS3, then no -- cows can't use the one-year excuse.

If PS3 beats 360, cows are welcome to rub the embarassing truth in all our faces -- that the 360 started 1 year earlier, had a bigger library, a "better" library, and was always cheaper.

It started with games like DOA4 and PGR3, along with Splinter Cell games (i think), and even if they had a bad first year -- they still had 1 more year up on Wii and PS3 which is why it's leading PS3 in sales and is why it has been getting so many timed exlcusives, and stolen exclusives.

So the argument remains

DOA 4 was pretty much garbage to me, and the 360 is getting timed exclusives because devs dont have a hard time with the 360 and ofcourse MS paid them, and are you saying if you were MS you wouldent care to touch any exclusive Sony would have?

You need to look at the big picture:

1 year head start means people have a lot more to get comfortable with your dev kits (albeit the PS3 is complicated).
1 year head start means you have a bigger userbase, also meaning people want to make games for you instead of others.
1 year head start also means that devs see your bigger userbase, and decide to they want to make a game multiplat (GTA4, FFXIII, etc..)

These all tie into one another and the fact that 360 had a one year start. 360 would not get FFXIII if it didn't have the established base it has right now.

[QUOTE="Koalakommander"]

[QUOTE="SaintsRowSam"]Nintendo came out one year later, and is dominating the market, and the 360 paid the price with the one year headstart because of the faulty hardeware (which is going to be gone with the new jasper chip coming soon), and lets get one thing Straight, Sony is last Because of the poor desicions they made upon launch. THEY decided to make the console $600, did they have to include Blu-ray? NO they chose to do that, they could have just gone with good ol DVD. So Sony is last because of Sony, not because of MicrosoftSaintsRowSam

If the 360 beat PS3, then no -- cows can't use the one-year excuse.

If PS3 beats 360, cows are welcome to rub the embarassing truth in all our faces -- that the 360 started 1 year earlier, had a bigger library, a "better" library, and was always cheaper.

why is this myth still being perpetuated?

Now that I thought about it, the only group of fanboys that complain and bring up this "one year head start" excuse are mostly cows. The Wii came out the same time as the PS3 and look at them they're dominating the hardware. Also it's not MS fault that the competition couldn't come out earlier. People forgot that the PS3's launch was delayed. In the end, this "one year" excuse is basically just an excuse.

I don't think 360 users should beable to use the "Oh but it's alright, Jasper will fix all our problems" excuse, the Falcon chipset was suppost to eradicate the RROD, but people are still getting it.ONLYDOD

You know what I honestly think is the reason for the RROD?

The shape of the console.

You may think I'm crazy, but listen to this:

The Xbox360 is a concave figure. The Wii is more Rectangular Prism like. The PS3 is more of a Half Circle Prism.

I don't recall any other consoles in history ever being in a concave shape.

It might have something to do with the air circulation. Maybe its not circulating right causing a certain part to over heat? Maybe Microsoft should try changing the shape of the console, it might not have anything to do with the chip sets at all.

Then again, I'm not a technological genius, just speculating here.

[QUOTE="SaintsRowSam"]Nintendo came out one year later, and is dominating the market, and the 360 paid the price with the one year headstart because of the faulty hardeware (which is going to be gone with the new jasper chip coming soon), and lets get one thing Straight, Sony is last Because of the poor desicions they made upon launch. THEY decided to make the console $600, did they have to include Blu-ray? NO they chose to do that, they could have just gone with good ol DVD. So Sony is last because of Sony, not because of Microsoftchanntheman1

Maybe it is maybe it isn't the end. I've heard so many things of how the elite was "the end of RROD" or that falcon was the end and it wasn't. And besides even if the RROD is finally resolved it doesn't take away the damage that has already been done.

I myself have an Elite than has now RROD.

Thats now 2 360s dead

first the 20Gb now my 120 Gb elite

Nope, not anymore. By this time in the 360s lifecycle it had great games out, so why do we only have a couple? Also, PS3 had a huge range of time for about 7 months after launch where literally NOTHING came out, which I think is why it is so far behind.

Also, PS3 has got a bunch of chances coming up, with LBP, Home, R2, God Of War 3, Killzone 2, MAG, and more. So after all those games release, if PS3 is STILL BEHIND, then there is no excuse.

I still can't get over one of the biggest misses, Haze. I was so hyped for that, I sprinted home from school to download the demo, and it sucked so bad I was ready to go grab my PS3 and chuck it out the window..

nintendo is not dominating the market in anything but sales

even the ps3 has a better library than the wii.

[QUOTE="Bubblehash"][QUOTE="SaintsRowSam"]I Dont Think PS3 Users Should Be able to use the "One Year" Excuse. SaintsRowSam

way to go on speaking for yourself, unlike you i was simply speaking for myself

The reason should be :

Oh well.. It came out a year later. Even if it is the reason 360 has more/better games, it doesn't matter, because the fact still stands that the 360 hss more/better games.

The PS3 has better technology that needs time to be developed properly. Once blu-ray is mainstream, PS3 will dominate.

PS1: Owned with the CD format

PS2: Owned with DVD

PS3: Will own with Blu-Ray

That's just their business strategy.

It's just now Microsoft is giving this illusion that it's taking the market away from Sony and that's because they stared a year earlier and people couldn't wait. 360 has decent games, but once the PS3 picks up it's cake for them.

Nintendo came out one year later, and is dominating the market, and the 360 paid the price with the one year headstart because of the faulty hardeware (which is going to be gone with the new jasper chip coming soon), and lets get one thing Straight, Sony is last Because of the poor desicions they made upon launch. THEY decided to make the console $600, did they have to include Blu-ray? NO they chose to do that, they could have just gone with good ol DVD. So Sony is last because of Sony, not because of MicrosoftSaintsRowSam

Comparing the Wii to the PS3 is apples and pears friend. And the jasper chip won't fix RRoD, just like the falcon didn't. In the best scenario it will reduce it by a couple percent. All the previous Sony systems started out expensive. Didn't hurt them. It may be up to THEM how they price it, whether you buy it is up to YOU. I must admit that Bluray in the PS3 may have been partially a trojan horse to win the format war and that I see why people would be annoyed by that. It did turn out how Sony hoped it would though; it won them the format war. This will help Sony a lot, which is good for the PS3 in the long run. Aside from that, the presence of Bluray may not be necessary in the PS3, it's also not hurting it now is it? I enjoy watching my Bluray movies on my nice big screen. You enjoying your HD DVD's?

[QUOTE="SaintsRowSam"]Nintendo came out one year later, and is dominating the market, and the 360 paid the price with the one year headstart because of the faulty hardeware (which is going to be gone with the new jasper chip coming soon), and lets get one thing Straight, Sony is last Because of the poor desicions they made upon launch. THEY decided to make the console $600, did they have to include Blu-ray? NO they chose to do that, they could have just gone with good ol DVD. So Sony is last because of Sony, not because of MicrosoftNielsNL

Comparing the Wii to the PS3 is apples and pears friend. And the jasper chip won't fix RRoD, just like the falcon didn't. In the best scenario it will reduce it by a couple percent. All the previous Sony systems started out expensive. Didn't hurt them. It may be up to THEM how they price it, whether you buy it is up to YOU. I must admit that Bluray in the PS3 may have been partially a trojan horse to win the format war and that I see why people would be annoyed by that. It did turn out how Sony hoped it would though; it won them the format war. This will help Sony a lot, which is good for the PS3 in the long run. Aside from that, the presence of Bluray may not be necessary in the PS3, it's also not hurting it now is it? I enjoy watching my Bluray movies on my nice big screen. You enjoying your HD DVD's?

Falcon replaced only the CPU. The Jasper will have the new CPU and a new GPU, and the GPU is the main culprit in causing the RROD. So i think the Jasper will have a much larger effect then the Falcon did.

The PS3 has better technology that needs time to be developed properly. Once blu-ray is mainstream, PS3 will dominate.

PS1: Owned with the CD format

PS2: Owned with DVD

PS3: Will own with Blu-Ray

That's just their business strategy.

It's just now Microsoft is giving this illusion that it's taking the market away from Sony and that's because they stared a year earlier and people couldn't wait. 360 has decent games, but once the PS3 picks up it's cake for them.

SolidGame_basic

The one year excuse is irrelevant. Its weak damage control on the cows part. When this gen is over, *if* the 360 has 70 million sales and the PS3 60 million, M$ arent going to go " aw, we did launch a year early, so i guess we're even"-DrRobotnik-

Neither of those consoles are on pace for those sales numbers right now. As it stands they will be lucky to break 50 million. Keep in mind that sales decrease over time, not increase, at least historically that's what has happend.

[QUOTE="-DrRobotnik-"]The one year excuse is irrelevant. Its weak damage control on the cows part. When this gen is over, *if* the 360 has 70 million sales and the PS3 60 million, M$ arent going to go " aw, we did launch a year early, so i guess we're even"GundamGuy0

Neither of those consoles are on pace for those sales numbers right now. As it stands they will be lucky to break 50 million. Keep in mind that sales decrease over time, not increase, at least historically that's what has happend.

That really wasnt the point, i wasnt trying to predict sales.

[QUOTE="SolidGame_basic"]

The PS3 has better technology that needs time to be developed properly. Once blu-ray is mainstream, PS3 will dominate.

PS1: Owned with the CD format

PS2: Owned with DVD

PS3: Will own with Blu-Ray

That's just their business strategy.

It's just now Microsoft is giving this illusion that it's taking the market away from Sony and that's because they stared a year earlier and people couldn't wait. 360 has decent games, but once the PS3 picks up it's cake for them.

angelkimne

Different demographic. But I think one can argue that PS3 sales have a chance (not units sold) simply because people pay more for PS3 systems/games. Two new Wiis are $500, whereas one new 40gb PS3 is $400.

[QUOTE="angelkimne"][QUOTE="SolidGame_basic"]

The PS3 has better technology that needs time to be developed properly. Once blu-ray is mainstream, PS3 will dominate.

PS1: Owned with the CD format

PS2: Owned with DVD

PS3: Will own with Blu-Ray

That's just their business strategy.

It's just now Microsoft is giving this illusion that it's taking the market away from Sony and that's because they stared a year earlier and people couldn't wait. 360 has decent games, but once the PS3 picks up it's cake for them.

SolidGame_basic

Different demographic. But I think one can argue that PS3 sales have a chance (not units sold) simply because people pay more for PS3 systems/games. Two new Wiis are $500, whereas one new 40gb PS3 is $400.

So no, you're wrong.

[QUOTE="SolidGame_basic"][QUOTE="angelkimne"][QUOTE="SolidGame_basic"]

The PS3 has better technology that needs time to be developed properly. Once blu-ray is mainstream, PS3 will dominate.

PS1: Owned with the CD format

PS2: Owned with DVD

PS3: Will own with Blu-Ray

That's just their business strategy.

It's just now Microsoft is giving this illusion that it's taking the market away from Sony and that's because they stared a year earlier and people couldn't wait. 360 has decent games, but once the PS3 picks up it's cake for them.

angelkimne

Different demographic. But I think one can argue that PS3 sales have a chance (not units sold) simply because people pay more for PS3 systems/games. Two new Wiis are $500, whereas one new 40gb PS3 is $400.

So no, you're wrong.

Link to profit per unit? And also, how can you predict which way the pendulum will swing on a 10 year scale?

Hmmmm, I don't know what has had more just wait threads anymore, Jasper and the RROD fix or everything else on PS3 that been hyped as "right around the corner" for the last 2 years.

Link to profit per unit? And also, how can you predict which way the pendulum will swing on a 10 year scale?

SolidGame_basic

But here and the costs woulda gone down by now. Here for Ps3.

And i see no reason why Wii sales will suddenly stop nd Ps3 sales suddenly go super high. Which would need to happen for Ps3 to beat Wiii consoles sold this gen.

Sony is last because of Sony, not because of MicrosoftSaintsRowSam

Correct. When you've sold 200 million consoles, the only thing that can stop you is you.

[QUOTE="SolidGame_basic"]

Link to profit per unit? And also, how can you predict which way the pendulum will swing on a 10 year scale?

angelkimne

But here and the costs woulda gone down by now. Here for Ps3.

And i see no reason why Wii sales will suddenly stop nd Ps3 sales suddenly go super high. Which would need to happen for Ps3 to beat Wiii consoles sold this gen.

[QUOTE="SolidGame_basic"]

Link to profit per unit? And also, how can you predict which way the pendulum will swing on a 10 year scale?

angelkimne

But here and the costs woulda gone down by now. Here for Ps3.

And i see no reason why Wii sales will suddenly stop nd Ps3 sales suddenly go super high. Which would need to happen for Ps3 to beat Wiii consoles sold this gen.

First of all, you linked me to articles over a year old and from sites I've never even heard about. The one on the PS3 talks about the 60gb model which is obsolete and not the new 40/80gb models which Sony has already made attempts to cut costs on (ie getting rid of backwards compatibility, extra ports, etc).

Secondly, I never said that Wii sales woudl stop, nor did I say for sure that the PS3 would overcome it. I said one can argue, and that's simply because Sony is in a bigger business with more expensive hardware, along with a cheaper Blu Ray, more Online features and HD peripherals, etc.That only can generate much more revenue for the PS3. The reason why the Wii is making so much money is because of economies of scale and being able to sell it all those casuals, but they're not selling at such a high price. If the PS3 can reach economies of scale at a higher price with much more peripherals/accesories/features then why not give it a chance to catch up?

[QUOTE="angelkimne"][QUOTE="SolidGame_basic"]

Link to profit per unit? And also, how can you predict which way the pendulum will swing on a 10 year scale?

SolidGame_basic

But here and the costs woulda gone down by now. Here for Ps3.

And i see no reason why Wii sales will suddenly stop nd Ps3 sales suddenly go super high. Which would need to happen for Ps3 to beat Wiii consoles sold this gen.

First of all, you linked me to articles over a year old and from sites I've never even heard about. The one on the PS3 talks about the 60gb model which is obsolete and not the new 40/80gb models which Sony has already made attempts to cut costs on (ie getting rid of backwards compatibility, extra ports, etc).

Secondly, I never said that Wii sales woudl stop, nor did I say for sure that the PS3 would overcome it. I said one can argue, and that's simply because Sony is in a bigger business with more expensive hardware, along with a cheaper Blu Ray, more Online features and HD peripherals, etc.That only can generate much more revenue for the PS3. The reason why the Wii is making so much money is because of economies of scale and being able to sell it all those casuals, but they're not selling at such a high price. If the PS3 can reach economies of scale at a higher price with much more peripherals/accesories/features then why not give it a chance to catch up?

2. Yes, but the price has also gone down. It probably is just about making even now, but you get my point. Wii makes more profit per unit than Ps3.

3. blah, blah, blah... I can't be bothered to debate sales anymore.

Who cares if it came out a year early? Sony controlled gaming. They were the king. Now look at them...

It's their fault they're losing right now. Seeing as how they dominated last gen, they should've been made it to second or first even if the Xbox had a 1 year headstart...

[QUOTE="NielsNL"]

[QUOTE="SaintsRowSam"]Nintendo came out one year later, and is dominating the market, and the 360 paid the price with the one year headstart because of the faulty hardeware (which is going to be gone with the new jasper chip coming soon), and lets get one thing Straight, Sony is last Because of the poor desicions they made upon launch. THEY decided to make the console $600, did they have to include Blu-ray? NO they chose to do that, they could have just gone with good ol DVD. So Sony is last because of Sony, not because of Microsoft-DrRobotnik-

Comparing the Wii to the PS3 is apples and pears friend. And the jasper chip won't fix RRoD, just like the falcon didn't. In the best scenario it will reduce it by a couple percent. All the previous Sony systems started out expensive. Didn't hurt them. It may be up to THEM how they price it, whether you buy it is up to YOU. I must admit that Bluray in the PS3 may have been partially a trojan horse to win the format war and that I see why people would be annoyed by that. It did turn out how Sony hoped it would though; it won them the format war. This will help Sony a lot, which is good for the PS3 in the long run. Aside from that, the presence of Bluray may not be necessary in the PS3, it's also not hurting it now is it? I enjoy watching my Bluray movies on my nice big screen. You enjoying your HD DVD's?

Falcon replaced only the CPU. The Jasper will have the new CPU and a new GPU, and the GPU is the main culprit in causing the RROD. So i think the Jasper will have a much larger effect then the Falcon did.

That's not how I've heard the story. The new chips will generate less heat, which is good since heat is what's causing RRoD. Thing is though, that there's an essential flaw in the design making it troublesome for the 360 to lose it's heat, which will therefore accumulate, cause the temperature to rise and brick your system. With the new chip the temperature will just rise slower. But since lots of people (like me) play for several hours on end sometimes, the problems will still persist.