MS responds to Hirai - can't find a thread for it:

[QUOTE="II_Seraphim_II"]Why do companies even respond? I mean look at nintendo. They dont dabble in these measuring contests like MS and Sony do, because they know they are gonna come up on top. Its like sex, the people that are having it, dont talk about it.DrinkDuff

Except MS only talks about NA sales in their press release because that is where they have the strongest position. It is also the numbers that make SOny look the worst because it is harder for them to catch up in NA. MS conveniently ignores total, world wide sales which they are still winning but are nowhere near as strong a position and where they tend to lose the most ground.

So I would argue that their "solid numbers" contain some of their own spin and a tinge of arrogance...because they figure the lemmings wouldn't notice this. And according to this thread, MS was right.

[QUOTE="Steppy_76"][QUOTE="Blackbond"]

You fail to see that a new comer with their second system is beating out a multi time 100 million plus selling console manufacturer. I like your speculatory questions. Those won't get you any where. Yes MS dropped the price but isn't that what Sony is franticially trying to do right now?

At the end of the day selling is selling no matter how you do it.

ZIMdoom

Except the 80 gig had some features stipped so it wasn't the same machine. Hence the ability to drop the price without losing more than they already were.

However I just wanted to point out that the 360 has had TWO $50 price drops. Not one $100 price drop as your post seems to imply. The PS3 so far has had one $100 price drop. Therefore your 1/3 the time comment is incorrect.

[QUOTE="Steppy_76"][QUOTE="Blackbond"]

You fail to see that a new comer with their second system is beating out a multi time 100 million plus selling console manufacturer. I like your speculatory questions. Those won't get you any where. Yes MS dropped the price but isn't that what Sony is franticially trying to do right now?

At the end of the day selling is selling no matter how you do it.

ZIMdoom

Except the 80 gig had some features stipped so it wasn't the same machine. Hence the ability to drop the price without losing more than they already were.

However I just wanted to point out that the 360 has had TWO $50 price drops. Not one $100 price drop as your post seems to imply. The PS3 so far has had one $100 price drop. Therefore your 1/3 the time comment is incorrect.

[QUOTE="DrinkDuff"][QUOTE="II_Seraphim_II"]Why do companies even respond? I mean look at nintendo. They dont dabble in these measuring contests like MS and Sony do, because they know they are gonna come up on top. Its like sex, the people that are having it, dont talk about it.ZIMdoom

Except MS only talks about NA sales in their press release because that is where they have the strongest position. It is also the numbers that make SOny look the worst because it is harder for them to catch up in NA. MS conveniently ignores total, world wide sales which they are still winning but are nowhere near as strong a position and where they tend to lose the most ground.

So I would argue that their "solid numbers" contain some of their own spin and a tinge of arrogance...because they figure the lemmings wouldn't notice this. And according to this thread, MS was right.

[QUOTE="ZIMdoom"][QUOTE="Steppy_76"]The funny thing is, is that the 360 has had a 100 dollar pricedrop total(Pro/Premium from 399 to 299, Arcade/Core from 299 to 199). The PS3 has already had a had that same drop in 1/3 less time. You could argue that the PS3 has had a 200 dollar price drop as the 80 gig replaced the 60 gig which debuted at 599 while the 80 gig is now 399.Steppy_76

Except the 80 gig had some features stipped so it wasn't the same machine. Hence the ability to drop the price without losing more than they already were.

However I just wanted to point out that the 360 has had TWO $50 price drops. Not one $100 price drop as your post seems to imply. The PS3 so far has had one $100 price drop. Therefore your 1/3 the time comment is incorrect.

[QUOTE="ZIMdoom"][QUOTE="Steppy_76"]The funny thing is, is that the 360 has had a 100 dollar pricedrop total(Pro/Premium from 399 to 299, Arcade/Core from 299 to 199). The PS3 has already had a had that same drop in 1/3 less time. You could argue that the PS3 has had a 200 dollar price drop as the 80 gig replaced the 60 gig which debuted at 599 while the 80 gig is now 399.PoppaGamer

Except the 80 gig had some features stipped so it wasn't the same machine. Hence the ability to drop the price without losing more than they already were.

However I just wanted to point out that the 360 has had TWO $50 price drops. Not one $100 price drop as your post seems to imply. The PS3 so far has had one $100 price drop. Therefore your 1/3 the time comment is incorrect.

Except a HD cable, oddly. Which is annoying. But yeah, otherwise it comes with virtually everything you need.

[QUOTE="Steppy_76"][QUOTE="ZIMdoom"]

Except the 80 gig had some features stipped so it wasn't the same machine. Hence the ability to drop the price without losing more than they already were.

However I just wanted to point out that the 360 has had TWO $50 price drops. Not one $100 price drop as your post seems to imply. The PS3 so far has had one $100 price drop. Therefore your 1/3 the time comment is incorrect.PoppaGamer

Except the 80 gig had some features stipped so it wasn't the same machine. Hence the ability to drop the price without losing more than they already were.

However I just wanted to point out that the 360 has had TWO $50 price drops. Not one $100 price drop as your post seems to imply. The PS3 so far has had one $100 price drop. Therefore your 1/3 the time comment is incorrect.

Except a HD cable, oddly. Which is annoying. But yeah, otherwise it comes with virtually everything you need.

[QUOTE="PoppaGamer"][QUOTE="Steppy_76"]I'm talking total difference from launch until now. I also only said it only had a 100 dollar drop and merely added that you COULD argue it's had a 200 dollar drop. One could also note that the 360 has dropped its price and ADDED features rather than dropping its price and removing them.Steppy_76

[QUOTE="ZIMdoom"][QUOTE="Steppy_76"]The funny thing is, is that the 360 has had a 100 dollar pricedrop total(Pro/Premium from 399 to 299, Arcade/Core from 299 to 199). The PS3 has already had a had that same drop in 1/3 less time. You could argue that the PS3 has had a 200 dollar price drop as the 80 gig replaced the 60 gig which debuted at 599 while the 80 gig is now 399.PoppaGamer

Except the 80 gig had some features stipped so it wasn't the same machine. Hence the ability to drop the price without losing more than they already were.

However I just wanted to point out that the 360 has had TWO $50 price drops. Not one $100 price drop as your post seems to imply. The PS3 so far has had one $100 price drop. Therefore your 1/3 the time comment is incorrect.

Except the 80 gig had some features stipped so it wasn't the same machine. Hence the ability to drop the price without losing more than they already were.

However I just wanted to point out that the 360 has had TWO $50 price drops. Not one $100 price drop as your post seems to imply. The PS3 so far has had one $100 price drop. Therefore your 1/3 the time comment is incorrect.

[QUOTE="Steppy_76"][QUOTE="PoppaGamer"]The 360 arcade says hello.PoppaGamer

[QUOTE="Steppy_76"][QUOTE="PoppaGamer"] Plus they ignore the fact that EVERY PS3 unit has had free online, blu-ray, a HDD, wifi, and everything a gamer needs to play every game and EVERY FEATURE IN EVERY GAME. Not once has Sony spoiled now-gen gamer's needs buy dumbing down their console to meet a lower price. And that, in the long run, serves all PS3 owners better. Devs can create games knowing that every single PS3 owner has all of the hardware needed to play it. No need to constrain the game due to someone not having HDD.PoppaGamer

Plus they ignore the fact that EVERY PS3 unit has had free online, blu-ray, a HDD, wifi, and everything a gamer needs to play every game and EVERY FEATURE IN EVERY GAME. Not once has Sony spoiled now-gen gamer's needs buy dumbing down their console to meet a lower price. And that, in the long run, serves all PS3 owners better. Devs can create games knowing that every single PS3 owner has all of the hardware needed to play it. No need to constrain the game due to someone not having HDD.PoppaGamer

Removal of card readers, usb ports, backwards compatibility, and Rumble because they didn't want to settle that lawsuit ruight away in order to release a $400 version. Removing hardware B/C from European PS3's.

[QUOTE="PoppaGamer"][QUOTE="Steppy_76"]No, they just spoiled some gamers by pricing it above what they will pay.

Steppy_76

Can I just say that this argument is giving me baskets of lulz?

Anyway, Poppa, you better step down now, you're heading for some serious ownage. Just say sorry, and all will be good.

[QUOTE="PoppaGamer"]Plus they ignore the fact that EVERY PS3 unit has had free online, blu-ray, a HDD, wifi, and everything a gamer needs to play every game and EVERY FEATURE IN EVERY GAME. Not once has Sony spoiled now-gen gamer's needs buy dumbing down their console to meet a lower price. And that, in the long run, serves all PS3 owners better. Devs can create games knowing that every single PS3 owner has all of the hardware needed to play it. No need to constrain the game due to someone not having HDD.Blackbond

Removal of card readers, usb ports, backwards compatibility, and Rumble because they didn't want to settle that lawsuit ruight away in order to release a $400 version. Removing hardware B/C from European PS3's.

[QUOTE="Blackbond"]

[QUOTE="PoppaGamer"]Plus they ignore the fact that EVERY PS3 unit has had free online, blu-ray, a HDD, wifi, and everything a gamer needs to play every game and EVERY FEATURE IN EVERY GAME. Not once has Sony spoiled now-gen gamer's needs buy dumbing down their console to meet a lower price. And that, in the long run, serves all PS3 owners better. Devs can create games knowing that every single PS3 owner has all of the hardware needed to play it. No need to constrain the game due to someone not having HDD.PoppaGamer

Removal of card readers, usb ports, backwards compatibility, and Rumble because they didn't want to settle that lawsuit ruight away in order to release a $400 version. Removing hardware B/C from European PS3's.

Well, if those aren't needed, then what makes a hard drive necessary for an Xbox 360 gamer? All you need to play now gen games on an Xbox 360 is the system itself. A hard drive is not required.

[QUOTE="Blackbond"]

[QUOTE="PoppaGamer"]Plus they ignore the fact that EVERY PS3 unit has had free online, blu-ray, a HDD, wifi, and everything a gamer needs to play every game and EVERY FEATURE IN EVERY GAME. Not once has Sony spoiled now-gen gamer's needs buy dumbing down their console to meet a lower price. And that, in the long run, serves all PS3 owners better. Devs can create games knowing that every single PS3 owner has all of the hardware needed to play it. No need to constrain the game due to someone not having HDD.PoppaGamer

Removal of card readers, usb ports, backwards compatibility, and Rumble because they didn't want to settle that lawsuit ruight away in order to release a $400 version. Removing hardware B/C from European PS3's.

PoppaGamer, Those features that you tout as free, such as HD, WiFi, and Blu-Ray, are not actually free. It's built into the cost of the PS3 and it's the biggest reason why the PS3 had launch prices of $600. (1)Granted it's cheaper now but that's not the point. (2)I think Sony should take WiFi out and add backwards compatibility in. Since everyone doesn't need it, why include it? It should be sold as an accessory only, just not for $100 like the MS wireless adapter, which I will add is a complete ripoff. Wired is always the better way to go if possible.Lance_Kalzas

1. I totally agree with your argument when the PS3 was lowest at $600 or $500. But at $400, just $200 more than the 360 arcade, you get wifi, free online, a 40GB HDD, and blu-ray. You can't get all of that through MS hardware for $200. Even if a blu-ray add-on existed.

2. Everyone needs BC? I haven't played an older title once since I got my PS3. And I don't think I am only one in a hundred or something silly. Many gamers out there don't touch the older games. But I like Sony's approach better than yours. You get to not only play Call of Dut's sinlge player campaign, you also get to play for hours on end online no matter what your internet setup is. You actually get to enjoy the full game with everything out of the box. No need to worry about the length your console is away from your modem/router. No need to worry about paying to play online.

And that, in the long run, is going to give PS3 owners a fuller experience with their titles. IMHO.

Sure it has some spin, but everything said it at least true, it's not completely separated from reality like what Kaz spouted off. If I were to rate them on the "spin scale" of 1 to 10, MS would get about a 4 and Sony would get a 10.Steppy_76

I don't think that the main thing people are criticizing Kaz for IS outside reality. I do still think Sony is the industry leader...just not the current gen leader.

What I think people SHOULD be focusing on when tearing apart the press release is exactly what MS is smart enough to focus on - the ridiculous idea that being an industry leader in the past guarantees them future success. It doesn't, and if Sony thinks they can just sit back and rise on past success for ever, they are dumber than even the lemmings give them credit for.

Instead fanboy jump on the industry leader comment, and mistake it for market leader or generation leader to reach their conclusion that Kaz is out of touch. I think that is JUST as out of touch with reality on the lemmings part than KAz's comments.

[QUOTE="Lance_Kalzas"]PoppaGamer, Those features that you tout as free, such as HD, WiFi, and Blu-Ray, are not actually free. It's built into the cost of the PS3 and it's the biggest reason why the PS3 had launch prices of $600. (1)Granted it's cheaper now but that's not the point. (2)I think Sony should take WiFi out and add backwards compatibility in. Since everyone doesn't need it, why include it? It should be sold as an accessory only, just not for $100 like the MS wireless adapter, which I will add is a complete ripoff. Wired is always the better way to go if possible.PoppaGamer

1. I totally agree with your argument when the PS3 was lowest at $600 or $500. But at $400, just $200 more than the 360 arcade, you get wifi, free online, a 40GB HDD, and blu-ray. You can't get all of that through MS hardware for $200. Even if a blu-ray add-on existed.

2. Everyone needs BC? I haven't played an older title once since I got my PS3. And I don't think I am only one in a hundred or something silly. Many gamers out there don't touch the older games. But I like Sony's approach better than yours. You get to not only play Call of Dut's sinlge player campaign, you also get to play for hours on end online no matter what your internet setup is. You actually get to enjoy the full game with everything out of the box. No need to worry about the length your console is away from your modem/router. No need to worry about paying to play online.

And that, in the long run, is going to give PS3 owners a fuller experience with their titles. IMHO.

So because you don't care about BC sony gimping their console doesn't count

but because i don't care about online multiplayer i don't count as an "adult gamer" in your eyes

Your thinking your needs are the same as everyone elses .. and simply they are not ... some of us don't care about multiplayer .. some of us don't care about MMO's ... I'm gonna hold up my hand and say I DON'T CARE ABOUT ONLINE MULTIPLAYER !

you want to tell me i'm not a real gamer ? you want to have a look at my collection and tell me i've not played all the biggest and the best games for the last 20 years.

i'll lay somethnig down for you .. where i live the PS3 is twice the price of a 360 pro... it simply isn't worth the money !

Were you here complaining that the PS2 didn't have a hard drive back in the days of the original xbox ?

Were you there complaining about the PS2's lack of online when the Dreamcast brought it to the shop floor a year before ?

were you here complaining when Sony introduced the need for memory cards when the PSone came out and the Saturn had built in flash memory for game save s ?

Are you here telling me that 40 million Wii owners aren't enjoying games because it doesn't have a suitable storage device ?

How dare you lay down your view of what a gamer is !

How dare you not think that the true test of a game is to look the freeking games !!

Be it SMG or No more heroes on Wii

Be it LBP or MGS4 on PS3

Be it Fable 2 or Gears on 360

Facts is there isn't a single game that you can't play on an arcade ... there isn't a single feature you can't use and although people might want more they have the option !

[QUOTE="Steppy_76"]Sure it has some spin, but everything said it at least true, it's not completely separated from reality like what Kaz spouted off. If I were to rate them on the "spin scale" of 1 to 10, MS would get about a 4 and Sony would get a 10.ZIMdoom

I don't think that the main thing people are criticizing Kaz for IS outside reality. I do still think Sony is the industry leader...just not the current gen leader.

What I think people SHOULD be focusing on when tearing apart the press release is exactly what MS is smart enough to focus on - the ridiculous idea that being an industry leader in the past guarantees them future success. It doesn't, and if Sony thinks they can just sit back and rise on past success for ever, they are dumber than even the lemmings give them credit for.

Instead fanboy jump on the industry leader comment, and mistake it for market leader or generation leader to reach their conclusion that Kaz is out of touch. I think that is JUST as out of touch with reality on the lemmings part than KAz's comments.

Honestly .. i think the industry leader is nintendo , simply becasue they hold the future of this generation in their hand as well as the direction games are taking.

Any time nintendo want to call a hault to the current gen it's within their power . MS and Sony can come up with 720 and PS4 .. but simply becasue of the strenght of sales of the Wii and the high cost they would have they are non starters.

Sony still wants to think it's in control , that it opened up the market with eyetoy and with Buzz .. that they created the Zeitgeist with the PSone and moved it to the mass market and public awareness with the PS2 .. all this is true ... but the balance of power has shifted .. sony still want to believe that if they follow their plan and get the numbers to reduce the price of the PS3 the Wii will become a footnote of this generation and the 360 will struggle to keep up with it's future proof machine. Some people want to see that as arogance. But it's not, it's their goal .. and they have to believe they can do it and just as importantly they have to sell the idea to the people.

And hey if they can do it good luck to them .. i know i for one will rush out to buy a PS3 when they reach a mass market price .. for now i'm willing to miss out and only play a few choice exclusives on other people's machines.

You're right, that is your opinion but Sony recognizes the need for BC because they put it in the PSN store. The problem with that route is who really wants to be forced to purchase the game again when they already have a physical copy of it that should be BC based on the original model? Since we're referring to personal experiences here, I like having a console that has BC in case I want to play older games and I know plenty of people that feel this way. Wifi? Again that should never be your first option because you will always have better gaming with a hardwired connection. Wireless should be avoided at all costs when it comes to gaming and, with that in mind, I think Sony should sell it as an accessory. You can enjoy any full game with any Xbox 360 sku whether it's the Arcade, Premium, Pro, or Elite. I don't think it's about needs versus wants because all of the consoles are capable of this out of the box. XBL? Yeah, it costs money per year but from the majority of the people that I know that have both consoles, they all say XBL is better, they'd rather pay for that service than use PSN for free, and wish PSN had an annual fee so they could improve that service faster. I agree with that sentiment. :)Lance_Kalzas

What does BC have to do with this generation's games? ZERO! I see the benefit in the feature for those who want to play older games. PoppaGamer

And what if somebody "sees the need" to play older games? Those were the words you used about the 360 and Blue-Ray movies ;)

My whole point was that Sony gives every PS3 owner the ability to play all of their now-gen games. Not only that but you can play every aspect of the game, including online. And you can do that with what comes in the box (except for a HD cable as Floppy Jim pointed out). PoppaGamer

I can agree with that. The problem is that it also forces you to pay for things you may not need. For example, Wi-Fi. What if you don't play online? An unneccessary add on. And so goes on.

And the advantage of a wired connection goes limp for someone who can't run cat5 cable through their home. And I don't know about you but I lived many places and been in many homes. There aren't many out there with ethernet connections in every room. So, those people,. a lot of people, wouldn't be able to play online without wifi.PoppaGamer

And what about those that have an ethernet conector near the console? Or those that don't play online? Those people, a lot of people, would be paying for something they don't need.

I'm not saying those aren't great feautures, because they are. I'm just saying that ont everybody will actually find them useful.

[QUOTE="PoppaGamer"]

[QUOTE="Lance_Kalzas"]PoppaGamer, Those features that you tout as free, such as HD, WiFi, and Blu-Ray, are not actually free. It's built into the cost of the PS3 and it's the biggest reason why the PS3 had launch prices of $600. (1)Granted it's cheaper now but that's not the point. (2)I think Sony should take WiFi out and add backwards compatibility in. Since everyone doesn't need it, why include it? It should be sold as an accessory only, just not for $100 like the MS wireless adapter, which I will add is a complete ripoff. Wired is always the better way to go if possible.Irve

1. I totally agree with your argument when the PS3 was lowest at $600 or $500. But at $400, just $200 more than the 360 arcade, you get wifi, free online, a 40GB HDD, and blu-ray. You can't get all of that through MS hardware for $200. Even if a blu-ray add-on existed.

2. Everyone needs BC? I haven't played an older title once since I got my PS3. And I don't think I am only one in a hundred or something silly. Many gamers out there don't touch the older games. But I like Sony's approach better than yours. You get to not only play Call of Dut's sinlge player campaign, you also get to play for hours on end online no matter what your internet setup is. You actually get to enjoy the full game with everything out of the box. No need to worry about the length your console is away from your modem/router. No need to worry about paying to play online.

And that, in the long run, is going to give PS3 owners a fuller experience with their titles. IMHO.

So because you don't care about BC sony gimping their console doesn't count

but because i don't care about online multiplayer i don't count as an "adult gamer" in your eyes

Your thinking your needs are the same as everyone elses .. and simply they are not ... some of us don't care about multiplayer .. some of us don't care about MMO's ... I'm gonna hold up my hand and say I DON'T CARE ABOUT ONLINE MULTIPLAYER !

you want to tell me i'm not a real gamer ? you want to have a look at my collection and tell me i've not played all the biggest and the best games for the last 20 years.

i'll lay somethnig down for you .. where i live the PS3 is twice the price of a 360 pro... it simply isn't worth the money !

Were you here complaining that the PS2 didn't have a hard drive back in the days of the original xbox ?

Were you there complaining about the PS2's lack of online when the Dreamcast brought it to the shop floor a year before ?

were you here complaining when Sony introduced the need for memory cards when the PSone came out and the Saturn had built in flash memory for game save s ?

Are you here telling me that 40 million Wii owners aren't enjoying games because it doesn't have a suitable storage device ?

How dare you lay down your view of what a gamer is !

How dare you not think that the true test of a game is to look the freeking games !!

Be it SMG or No more heroes on Wii

Be it LBP or MGS4 on PS3

Be it Fable 2 or Gears on 360

Facts is there isn't a single game that you can't play on an arcade ... there isn't a single feature you can't use and although people might want more they have the option !

Tell me how an arcade owner plays every feature of Halo 3 without paying more than the initial purchase price for what was in the box. (and don't give me that free month of XBL crap. That goes after that month and you pay from there)

YOU are the minority when it comes to playing online. Are you're honestly telling me that a console like the 360, known for online play, isn't having most of its adult owners playing online in some way, shape, or form? I don't buy it, never will.

And your little rant on BC means nothing when talking about today's consoles playing today's titles. I see the benefit of the feature to those who want it but to have a company concentrate on providing the best experience for its console owners for titles made for that console is a good thing. How does BC help a Halo fan who got an arcade 360 for xmas play every feature of Halo 3?

Why is it when Sony says something about the competition, they are made out to look like the bad guys? When MS make claims about the competition (no matter how stupid), its like the US fired a nuke in IRAQ and killed the terrorists (PS3) amazing. SONY recently have made some SOLID and true claims, what Kaz said is true, when you look at the proof (xbox 1) if you want to dominate, you have to make it last, the 360 already has become a white PS3, since it adopted all the features the PS3 already came with and the features MS were first against...lol.

Hell, MS...just rename the ELITE to the 'PS3'....might aswell.

[QUOTE="PoppaGamer"]

And what if somebody "sees the need" to play older games? Those were the words you used about the 360 and Blue-Ray movies ;)

[QUOTE="PoppaGamer"] My whole point was that Sony gives every PS3 owner the ability to play all of their now-gen games. Not only that but you can play every aspect of the game, including online. And you can do that with what comes in the box (except for a HD cable as Floppy Jim pointed out). IronBass

I can agree with that. The problem is that it also forces you to pay for things you may not need. For example, Wi-Fi. What if you don't play online? An unneccessary add on. And so goes on.

And the advantage of a wired connection goes limp for someone who can't run cat5 cable through their home. And I don't know about you but I lived many places and been in many homes. There aren't many out there with ethernet connections in every room. So, those people,. a lot of people, wouldn't be able to play online without wifi.PoppaGamer

And what about those that have an ethernet conector near the console? Or those that don't play online? Those people, a lot of people, would be paying for something they don't need.

I'm not saying those aren't great feautures, because they are. I'm just saying that ont everybody will actually find them useful.

They should of done there research.Wi-fi is actually useful to many and is being used more than ever.We all payed for something we don't need before.Blackbond doesn't have a hd tv so buying a hd console is something he doesn't need.

Holy crap this thread went off-topic! :lol:

Face of the wrath of King Bond! :shock:

Why is it when Sony says something about the competition, they are made out to look like the bad guys? When MS make claims about the competition (no matter how stupid), its like the US fired a nuke in IRAQ and killed the terrorists (PS3) amazing. SONY recently have made some SOLID and true claims, what Kaz said is true, when you look at the proof (xbox 1) if you want to dominate, you have to make it last, the 360 already has become a white PS3, since it adopted all the features the PS3 already came with and the features MS were first against...lol.

Hell, MS...just rename the ELITE to the 'PS3'....might aswell.

Eyezonmii

[QUOTE="PoppaGamer"]

And what if somebody "sees the need" to play older games? Those were the words you used about the 360 and Blue-Ray movies ;)

My whole point was that Sony gives every PS3 owner the ability to play all of their now-gen games. Not only that but you can play every aspect of the game, including online. And you can do that with what comes in the box (except for a HD cable as Floppy Jim pointed out). PoppaGamer

I can agree with that. The problem is that it also forces you to pay for things you may not need. For example, Wi-Fi. What if you don't play online? An unneccessary add on. And so goes on.

And the advantage of a wired connection goes limp for someone who can't run cat5 cable through their home. And I don't know about you but I lived many places and been in many homes. There aren't many out there with ethernet connections in every room. So, those people,. a lot of people, wouldn't be able to play online without wifi.PoppaGamer

And what about those that have an ethernet conector near the console? Or those that don't play online? Those people, a lot of people, would be paying for something they don't need.

I'm not saying those aren't great feautures, because they are. I'm just saying that ont everybody will actually find them useful.

I love it how you try to spin BC like it's nothing, even though the other two consoles have BC. :|

"buh buh you need wifi and a memery kard reader!" :cry:

Wrong. I said "somebody". Just in the last part I used "everybody", not "everyone" :P

[QUOTE="PoppaGamer"]So, let's get back to reality and the majority. MOST adult gamners who buy a 360 or PS3 WILL want to play online. PoppaGamer

Maybe. Maybe not. There's no way you can prove that. ;)

Again, my whole point here is that Sony is trying to give their owners a console that will have everything they need even if their gaming grows. I get it that the price may not be low enough for them to see that overall value..PoppaGamer

And our point was that for games, the arcade was enough, remember? And the arcade has everything needed for such gaming. Just that it costs $200 less. I call it an advantage.

. But as the price comes down, the standard PS3 features will be hard to pass up.PoppaGamer

That if Sony actually can afford another price drop soon.

I love it how you try to spin BC like it's nothing, even though the other two consoles have BC. :|

"buh buh you need wifi and a memery kard reader!" :cry:

Aljosa23

That person needs wifi to enjoy everything online this gen offers. Bc only relates to older titles. Has ZERO to do with games made now.PoppaGamer

Neither do Blue-Ray movies, but you used that argument. If you can use Blue-Ray movies, why can't he use BC?

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

I love it how you try to spin BC like it's nothing, even though the other two consoles have BC. :|

"buh buh you need wifi and a memery kard reader!" :cry:

PoppaGamer

You use wi-fi as an arguement when most people use a simple ethernet cord because it's
A) Better
B) Less hassle
C) Cheaper

But yet I can't use BC as an arguement even though it should be a standard this gen considering the other two consoles have it. Do you not see the hypocrisy in your statements?

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

I love it how you try to spin BC like it's nothing, even though the other two consoles have BC. :|

"buh buh you need wifi and a memery kard reader!" :cry:PoppaGamer

Why is it when Sony says something about the competition, they are made out to look like the bad guys? When MS make claims about the competition (no matter how stupid), its like the US fired a nuke in IRAQ and killed the terrorists (PS3) amazing. SONY recently have made some SOLID and true claims, what Kaz said is true, when you look at the proof (xbox 1) if you want to dominate, you have to make it last, the 360 already has become a white PS3, since it adopted all the features the PS3 already came with and the features MS were first against...lol.

Hell, MS...just rename the ELITE to the 'PS3'....might aswell.

Eyezonmii

I am a Sony fan and what they said about the 360 was stupid. You can't take one single example and then call it a trend. Yet that is what Sony did when they looked at the 4 year life of the 360 and then act as if all MS consoles will be the same...especially considering the 360 is already 3 years old and MS has not released the slightest hint they are planning next gen yet.

Why is this thread so derailed lol? on topic I notice once again neither company wants to acknowledge the pummeling Nintendo has given them.SapSacPrime

I have a Wii...and comparing it to the PS3/360 is like comparing hot wheels to go-carts. Both are meant for fun and playing around...but they are nowhere near the same experience for the same market. Nintendo is winning because they AREN'T competing in the same market for the same audience any more. Sure, they are winning the sales and profits...but they had to leave the main competition to do so. I wouldn't call that a pummeling. I'd call that re-inventing the game and/or finding your own niche.

Honestly .. i think the industry leader is nintendo , simply becasue they hold the future of this generation in their hand as well as the direction games are taking.

Any time nintendo want to call a hault to the current gen it's within their power . MS and Sony can come up with 720 and PS4 .. but simply becasue of the strenght of sales of the Wii and the high cost they would have they are non starters.

Sony still wants to think it's in control , that it opened up the market with eyetoy and with Buzz .. that they created the Zeitgeist with the PSone and moved it to the mass market and public awareness with the PS2 .. all this is true ... but the balance of power has shifted .. sony still want to believe that if they follow their plan and get the numbers to reduce the price of the PS3 the Wii will become a footnote of this generation and the 360 will struggle to keep up with it's future proof machine. Some people want to see that as arogance. But it's not, it's their goal .. and they have to believe they can do it and just as importantly they have to sell the idea to the people.

And hey if they can do it good luck to them .. i know i for one will rush out to buy a PS3 when they reach a mass market price .. for now i'm willing to miss out and only play a few choice exclusives on other people's machines.

Irve

I disagree, and here is why:

1) Sony has set the standard for what makes a successful console. They did this by entering the market a complete unknown (in terms of consoles) and instantly dominated. In only two console gens, they have sold more consoles than Nintendo has its whole life. Hell, they have sold more consoles than Nintendo and MS combined their whole lives. THAT is what makes them the industry leader. They are the IDEAL of what companies will aim for in terms of sales, success and library. And while they may be losing this gen, that fact doesn't change. And neither does the fact that the 360 is NOT going to be the next PS2...not even close. The Wii may come close but it is unclear how much staying power the Wii has (more on this below).

2) Nintendo holds the future of this gen in their hands? No, they don't. Neither MS nor Sony nor game developers nor gamers see the Wii as a competing product to the PS3/360. The Wii is the "toy" of this gen. Yes it is selling well, but it is more and more at the expense of real gamers such as myself who Nintendo is betraying by not releasing new IPs in favour of Party games, Kids garbage, recycled GC games with motion control added on, and crap like the god-awful Wii Music. And what I find hillarious is why can't kids play Mario? Why can't they play Zelda? I did when I was a kid and the original Mario and Zelda were WAY harder than today's versions. Why does a game have to be aimed at 3 year olds to be considered "family friendly" now? And arguably, kids would get WAY more fun AND enjoyment from playing guitar hero on easy than the pointlessness of Wii Music. The only people I can see Wii Music appealing to is literally 2 year olds. As a REAL gamer, I don't care about kiddiness in terms of look and "easiness" but Nintendo has taken their usual kiddiness and dumbed it down so much it is insulting. I would gladly pay $60 for a new 2D Mario that played like the old games did...and only needed one or two buttons. I would do that in a second and kids would love it. But no...can't do that because it would be work.

3) In my opinion, the new market that Nintendo is gambling so heavily on is fickle and will lose interest in gaming just as quickly as they get into it. This is not a smart strategy on Nintendo's part because they are building up a user base...they are actually sacrificing the long-term market (people who CARE about games) for an extremely short term market who simply see the Wii as the electronic equivalent of Sudoku. And while Sudoku exploded in popularity a couple years ago, how often do you hear or see people doing it now? THAT is what I envision for the Wii if Nintendo sticks with what they are doing. They are wasting time on a market that will not grow with them. A Market that shows no signs of buying more than a couple token games they can play when friends come over, or when they want a workout.

4) Nintendo can hault this generation any time they want? Considering they aren't even in the same market anymore, that is unlikely. If their next console follows the same trends the Wii has, then even IT will be weaker graphically than the PS3/360 and developers still won't support it with real games that long-term gamers want and support.

[QUOTE="Eyezonmii"]

Why is it when Sony says something about the competition, they are made out to look like the bad guys? When MS make claims about the competition (no matter how stupid), its like the US fired a nuke in IRAQ and killed the terrorists (PS3) amazing. SONY recently have made some SOLID and true claims, what Kaz said is true, when you look at the proof (xbox 1) if you want to dominate, you have to make it last, the 360 already has become a white PS3, since it adopted all the features the PS3 already came with and the features MS were first against...lol.

Hell, MS...just rename the ELITE to the 'PS3'....might aswell.

ZIMdoom

I am a Sony fan and what they said about the 360 was stupid. You can't take one single example and then call it a trend. Yet that is what Sony did when they looked at the 4 year life of the 360 and then act as if all MS consoles will be the same...especially considering the 360 is already 3 years old and MS has not released the slightest hint they are planning next gen yet.

1) Sony has set the standard for what makes a successful console. They did this by entering the market a complete unknown (in terms of consoles) and instantly dominated. In only two console gens, they have sold more consoles than Nintendo has its whole life. Hell, they have sold more consoles than Nintendo and MS combined their whole lives. THAT is what makes them the industry leader. They are the IDEAL of what companies will aim for in terms of sales, success and library. And while they may be losing this gen, that fact doesn't change. And neither does the fact that the 360 is NOT going to be the next PS2...not even close. The Wii may come close but it is unclear how much staying power the Wii has (more on this below).

ZIMdoom

I disagree. True, Sony was incredible successful with PS1/2, there's no denying that. But, if take a closer look, they didn't set the standard.

The Wii didn't follow the route of the PS2, neither did the 360, not even the PS3. Looking how is this gen going, is Nintendo has set the standard.

2) Nintendo holds the future of this gen in their hands? No, they don't. Neither MS nor Sony nor game developers nor gamers see the Wii as a competing product to the PS3/360. The Wii is the "toy" of this gen. Yes it is selling well, but it is more and more at the expense of real gamers such as myself who Nintendo is betraying by not releasing new IPs in favour of Party games, Kids garbage, recycled GC games with motion control added on, and crap like the god-awful Wii Music. And what I find hillarious is why can't kids play Mario? Why can't they play Zelda? I did when I was a kid and the original Mario and Zelda were WAY harder than today's versions. Why does a game have to be aimed at 3 year olds to be considered "family friendly" now? And arguably, kids would get WAY more fun AND enjoyment from playing guitar hero on easy than the pointlessness of Wii Music. The only people I can see Wii Music appealing to is literally 2 year olds. As a REAL gamer, I don't care about kiddiness in terms of look and "easiness" but Nintendo has taken their usual kiddiness and dumbed it down so much it is insulting. I would gladly pay $60 for a new 2D Mario that played like the old games did...and only needed one or two buttons. I would do that in a second and kids would love it. But no...can't do that because it would be work.

3) In my opinion, the new market that Nintendo is gambling so heavily on is fickle and will lose interest in gaming just as quickly as they get into it. This is not a smart strategy on Nintendo's part because they are building up a user base...they are actually sacrificing the long-term market (people who CARE about games) for an extremely short term market who simply see the Wii as the electronic equivalent of Sudoku. And while Sudoku exploded in popularity a couple years ago, how often do you hear or see people doing it now? THAT is what I envision for the Wii if Nintendo sticks with what they are doing. They are wasting time on a market that will not grow with them. A Market that shows no signs of buying more than a couple token games they can play when friends come over, or when they want a workout.

4) Nintendo can hault this generation any time they want? Considering they aren't even in the same market anymore, that is unlikely. If their next console follows the same trends the Wii has, then even IT will be weaker graphically than the PS3/360 and developers still won't support it with real games that long-term gamers want and support.

ZIMdoom

Even if everything you sayhere is true (since a lot of it is opinion or simple speculation), that doesn't stop Nintendo from being the actual industry leader. Sales, market appeal, possition, momentun,etc.

True, Sony was the leader at its point, but you can't live up on past glories.

[QUOTE="ZIMdoom"][QUOTE="Eyezonmii"]

Why is it when Sony says something about the competition, they are made out to look like the bad guys? When MS make claims about the competition (no matter how stupid), its like the US fired a nuke in IRAQ and killed the terrorists (PS3) amazing. SONY recently have made some SOLID and true claims, what Kaz said is true, when you look at the proof (xbox 1) if you want to dominate, you have to make it last, the 360 already has become a white PS3, since it adopted all the features the PS3 already came with and the features MS were first against...lol.

Hell, MS...just rename the ELITE to the 'PS3'....might aswell.

Eyezonmii

I am a Sony fan and what they said about the 360 was stupid. You can't take one single example and then call it a trend. Yet that is what Sony did when they looked at the 4 year life of the 360 and then act as if all MS consoles will be the same...especially considering the 360 is already 3 years old and MS has not released the slightest hint they are planning next gen yet.

Funny to see Microsoft & Sony being so combative when they'll still only be second play when the smoke clears. Nintendo wins.Flamestos

[QUOTE="Eyezonmii"][QUOTE="ZIMdoom"]

I am a Sony fan and what they said about the 360 was stupid. You can't take one single example and then call it a trend. Yet that is what Sony did when they looked at the 4 year life of the 360 and then act as if all MS consoles will be the same...especially considering the 360 is already 3 years old and MS has not released the slightest hint they are planning next gen yet.

IronBass

[QUOTE="IronBass"][QUOTE="Eyezonmii"] its about supporting the console, even tho you have another new console out there. Something MS have yet to do...What kaz is saying isn't wrong and MS have yet to prove this. He makes a fair point. MS don't seem to think ahead. Unlike Sony. (look at the PS3's features) We shall if when MS releases a new console and if it will continue to support the 360 and not kill it. Same goes for the the life of the 360, before a new xbox is out. Eyezonmii

Where did I say the PS3 won't have a 10 years cycle? :| I just said - RIGHT NOW - it doesn't have what's needed.

And nope, they didn't "predict" anything. Theyclaimed the 360 would die soon based on the last gen, what, considering how different the situations is, is just a big pile of BS.

And where did I say Sony were out of the game? And what exactly of my claims is false? I simply said that, if we take market appeal, position on the industry, profitability and sales, there was no way for Sony to be leading. That would be Nintendo.

I've never said Sony was out, or that the PS3 will die soon, or that they will never lead again :|

[QUOTE="Eyezonmii"][QUOTE="IronBass"] Nope. They are living on the past. They claim the 360 will die soon, but there again, three years later and its hardware and software sales are extremely solid. They claim the PS3 will last ten years, but it doesn't have any of the three things needed for that (biggest userbase, biggest software sales and profitability) . Any way you look it, saying that Sony is leading the industry (especially when almost every annalist out there says how much in a trouble Sony is) is just being just disillusionall. IronBass