[QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"][QUOTE="Plagueless"] Ah, the tried and true "year head start" argument. Let me ask you this, why do sheep not pull up that argument? Oh wait, I know, Its because their system actually sold well, as opposed to rotting with no games for the first 2 years of it's lifecycle. And on second note, the PS3 has NEVER been double the price of the 360. 2006 20gb 360- $399 2006 20gb PS3- $599 thats a difference of 33%, you moron. And this is the biggest gap of the gen, when comparing consoles with similar features. Dont try to thorm me that the Arcade vs the top-tier PS3 BS, not gonna work. Fact is, Sony, and the PS3, lost. The 360 atm does not have many exclusives, but to the average gamer this doesn't matter because there are so may great multiplats. In 2007, there were nowhere near as many good multiplats, and the PS3 suffered. Xbox outsold the PS3 in 2011 Worldwide. The gap grows bigger, not smaller. Sony is bleeding money as they have been since 2005. The Vita is set to be a colossal failure. At this rate, there wont be a PS4. MS, on the other hand, is as rich as ever, and fully ready to launch an amazing next-gen system. It's funny how you cows always bring up this year-head start thing, especially since both the PS1 and PS2 did it. Those systems had some great exclusives that everybody wanteed tough, the PS3? not so much.Plagueless
It's not an argument moron, it's a fact. And it's also a fact that the PS3 sold more in the same timeframe despite being more expensive. Fact, not argument. And I didn't bring up sales, they're pointless, just spreading some facts on lem crazed sales freaks. They are facts that mean nothing though, you don't get it. No one in the real world is going to say "bu...bu...the PS3 was handicapped!!!!" Once again, why do the sheep not use this argument? Because they don't have to. They don't have to justify why they couldn't outsell the 360, even after 2 gens of not outselling sony, and 1 gen of not outselling MS. I'm just saying that it's hilarious whatching cows pull this argument, because it's the only reason you can think the 360 is outselling the PS3. By that logic, the only reason the PS1 and PS2 outsold the competition is because they launched early. WRONG! It's because the PS1 and PS2 had what gamers want, where as the PS3 doesn't. Don't believe me? Then why has the 360 doubled on the sales of it's predecessor, whereas the PS3 hasn't even made half of it's?Sells don't determine quality, I guess you think the Wii is the best system ever because it sold more than 360 and PS3 combined right? Also here'ssome fun for ya:According to the thread you made yesterday about 360 sells vs PS3 sells, you posted that Killzone 3 sold 1 million more copies than Halo CE Anniversery.
Now Killzone 3 has been out longer than Halo Reach so of course it's going to have overall more sales, however Halo CE just came out a few months ago and it's already 1 million behind Killzone 3, that's because it's selling at a faster rate than KZ3. And eventually it will outsell KZ3, just right now KZ has more sales overall.
Same thing with PS3 and 360, right now 360 has more overall sales because it came out first. However the PS3 has been selling at a faster rate ever than 360 ever since the PS3 slim hit the market, it's only a matter of time before the PS3 overtakes the 360 in overall sales.
So your defeated by your own logic, I don't have to do anything. You think sales determine quality, so obviously that means Killzone 3 is better than Halo CE since it has more overall sales.
I think both games are great BTW, but in your logic KZ3 >>> Halo CE. Using your logic Wii >>> 360 >>> PS3, or what is selling at a faster rate Halo CE >>> KZ3 but using that logic PS3 >>> 360
You can't have it both ways, sorry.
bye bye xbox
so you know the 360 must relaly suck right now 
Log in to comment