Sorry but this whole 360 has more games than ps3 argument is totally flawed.

[QUOTE="ianuilliam"]Look at a ps1 launch title compared to a end title. Look at a PS2 launch title compared to a end-title. Or a x-box, although the lifespan of the x-box was less than that of any playstation. The fact is, no developer has ever taken advantage of the full extent of a systems hardware until YEARS after the system is released. Any system. There is room still for improvement in 360 games before they hit the hardwares limit. There is room for improvement still in PS3 games before they hit the hardwares limit. The difference is, when the 360 has pushed its limits and MS has to move on to a new system (at which point they will likely completely stop support of 360, forcing MS fans to shell out on a new system), the PS3 will still have untapped potential, because like it or not, it has better tech.

The x-box had a 4 year life before you had to move on. Sony so far has offered 5-6 years between system launches, but also continued overlapping support of the previous console, making its system's lifespan in the 8-10 year range. The only way that was possible was by having tech that was ahead of its time, allowing it to stay marketable longer. So yea, the PS3 has better hardware, and you will see games that prove it. Once the 360 potential is tapped and you have to move on to the X-box 720 or 1080 or whatever they go to next.

Medjai

there is only a handful of games that I even go back and play for instance I love KOTOR but I tryed to play it the other day on PC and I was like ugh just because I have already played the hell out of it...I have been playing Halo1 and 2 recently just because I am amp'd for 3...there are only a couple games I play for nostalgia

I know you can't really make a rule out of 1 generation, but looking at the x-box lifespan, do you think the 360 will last until 2010-11? If they pull the same thing as last time, it'll be about 2009 when they release a new one and drop any kind of support on the 360. Maybe that's why they aren't too worried about fixing the crap hardware and are just using the extended warranty band-aid; because they know it's not worth worrying about when the 360's lifespan is half-done already.

[QUOTE="Thinker_145"]But i bet you cant find anything fanboyish in my post history.Medjai

100 posts and most of em are in this thread.

[QUOTE="Thinker_145"][QUOTE="DeadMan1290"]

[QUOTE="Thinker_145"][QUOTE="Zenkuso"]If this is a xbox 360 vs PS3 debate shouldn't you keep it within the confines of this generation, and most times its arguements about xbox 360 have a superior lineup in the same given time frame as the ps3 ^_^ DeadMan1290

I don't think he meant what your logical brainthinks

I think he meant. Well you see PS3 has been out for 9 months right?. Well I think he means that in the 9 months of the 360's life better games came out for the 360. Before PS3 and Wii launched.

U can only compare the ps3's nine months with the 360 in the same time frame meaning the same year of calander and not the console's lifespan.

[QUOTE="Thinker_145"][QUOTE="DeadMan1290"]

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"][QUOTE="DeadMan1290"]360 is BC with Xbox games:shock: point is?CaseyWegner

That's what I've been trying to say all this time. The TC keeps mixing the gens.

ok. then just compare the 360's launch titles with the ps3 as of today. :?

I think he meant. Well you see PS3 has been out for 9 months right?. Well I think he means that in the 9 months of the 360's life better games came out for the 360. Before PS3 and Wii launched.

U can only compare the ps3's nine months with the 360 in the same time frame meaning the same year of calander and not the console's lifespan.

And again comparing Last-Gen with Current-Gen. I give up, you just don't get it.

[QUOTE="Zenkuso"]

Man the blind sony side fanboyism in this thread is freakin great.

You judge a system war via a generation and within the confines of that generation, you don't bring up its ancestor to provide ownage, that just proves the console isn't worth a slice of jack.

Your having to rely on the ps2 having good games to prove the ps3 is worth something? why buy a 600$ + console when you can walk out and buy a ps2 for 150$ in a bundle with two games, mem card and extra controller?

Thinker_145

Thats fair game considering its within the confines of the generation, unfortunately you can't understand that. Sure the ps2 has games coming out still and the xbox and gamecube combined where destroyed by the ps2 but your trying to use a last generation console to prove that your new generation console holds its worth and unfortunately its just a fruitless debate that you'll keep going on and on and on about til you are satisfied that you have proven something to yourself but to no avail will many forum goers here even actually be phased by this fanboyism.

True gamers eat you fanboys for breakfast and spit you into the dust ^_^

Under what criteria?Reviews!well didnt u know that standards change over time and you cant compare using review scores of different years.Thinker_145

I know you can't really make a rule out of 1 generation, but looking at the x-box lifespan, do you think the 360 will last until 2010-11? If they pull the same thing as last time, it'll be about 2009 when they release a new one and drop any kind of support on the 360. Maybe that's why they aren't too worried about fixing the crap hardware and are just using the extended warranty band-aid; because they know it's not worth worrying about when the 360's lifespan is half-done already.ianuilliam

[QUOTE="DeadMan1290"]

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"][QUOTE="DeadMan1290"]360 is BC with Xbox games:shock: point is?Thinker_145

That's what I've been trying to say all this time. The TC keeps mixing the gens.

Customers will regardless of whether or not it's"fair". Sony and Microsoft made their choices in regards to their strategies for this generation. Each of them must compete with those advantages and limitations now.

MS launched a year earlier than the PS3 in order to gain a larger foothold early in the generation. This netted them a better library early and some hardware reliability issues.

Sony launched the PS3 late in order to include Blu-Ray. This netted them a higher cost, a later start, the ability to play Blu-Ray movies, extra storage space, and a weaker library early on in the generation.

Each company made their choice, and now they must live with the consequences of their choices.

Under what criteria?Reviews!well didnt u know that standards change over time and you cant compare using review scores of different years.Thinker_145

after only nine months? :?

system wars...not company wars.CaseyWegner

WOW way to avoid the topic completely. :)

[QUOTE="ianuilliam"]I know you can't really make a rule out of 1 generation, but looking at the x-box lifespan, do you think the 360 will last until 2010-11? If they pull the same thing as last time, it'll be about 2009 when they release a new one and drop any kind of support on the 360. Maybe that's why they aren't too worried about fixing the crap hardware and are just using the extended warranty band-aid; because they know it's not worth worrying about when the 360's lifespan is half-done already.Medjai

Most of those consoles that lasted about 5 years, actually lasted more. New NES games came out for years after the SNES was released. PS1 and PS2 continued to see support long after the next one came along. New Gamecube games came along after the Wii. About the only system to have had a hard end forcing you to move up was the X-box. Every other system I can think of has had more of a transitioning grace period, making the systems lifespan more like 7-10 years rather than 4-5.

Thinker, the PS3's one year is almost up, and most of Sony's big games are flopping, cept Warhawk.

Technically, yes PS3 owners dont have to sit and wait for games, they could play their PS2 games that they have, and the PS2 games that are coming out. But unless you're in JRPGs, that really wont matter.

This is SYSTEM wars, between current competing systems. The 360 is NOT competing with the PS2 in a merketing perspective, maybe in a market perspective.

Reguardless, by November the cow's "one year" excuse is going to be useless, unless there is a game that will make it worth everyones wild. So no, it isnt totally flawed at all. Either you're a crazed Sony fanatic, or a PS3 owner trying to justify their purchase...

[QUOTE="Thinker_145"]Just tell me is it fair to compare the library of a 21 moth old console vs a 9 month old console.mattbbpl

Customers will regardless of whether or not it's"fair". Sony and Microsoft made their choices in regards to their strategies for this generation. Each of them must compete with those advantages and limitations now.

MS launched a year earlier than the PS3 in order to gain a larger foothold early in the generation. This netted them a better library early and some hardware reliability issues.

Sony launched the PS3 late in order to include Blu-Ray. This netted them a higher cost, a later start, and a weaker library early on in the generation.

Each company made their choice, and now they must live with the consequences of their choices.

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]system wars...not company wars.yamcake

WOW way to avoid the topic completely. :)

How did he avoid it? The TC wants SW to use ALL of Microsoft's and Sony's consoles in the system war for this generation, not just the ones recently out. He's wanting to put one whole company against another in a conflict between two singular console, and not just a specific product. His post was more on topic than your's was.

system wars...not company wars.CaseyWegner

[QUOTE="Medjai"][QUOTE="ianuilliam"]I know you can't really make a rule out of 1 generation, but looking at the x-box lifespan, do you think the 360 will last until 2010-11? If they pull the same thing as last time, it'll be about 2009 when they release a new one and drop any kind of support on the 360. Maybe that's why they aren't too worried about fixing the crap hardware and are just using the extended warranty band-aid; because they know it's not worth worrying about when the 360's lifespan is half-done already.ianuilliam

Most of those consoles that lasted about 5 years, actually lasted more. New NES games came out for years after the SNES was released. PS1 and PS2 continued to see support long after the next one came along. New Gamecube games came along after the Wii. About the only system to have had a hard end forcing you to move up was the X-box. Every other system I can think of has had more of a transitioning grace period, making the systems lifespan more like 7-10 years rather than 4-5.

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]system wars...not company wars.yamcake

WOW way to avoid the topic completely. :)

it was 100% related to what he just said. :|

[QUOTE="yamcake"]

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]system wars...not company wars.Verge_6

WOW way to avoid the topic completely. :)

How did he avoid it? The TC wants SW to use ALL of Microsoft's and Sony's consoles in the system war for this generation, not just the ones recently out. He's wanting to put one whole company agaisnt another, and not just a specific product. His post was more on topic than your's was.

His post singled out one detail from the topic which is that the argument about the 360 haveing mor games than the ps3 is flawed. And any way, it makes sense to put the ps2 and original xbox into play. The xbox1 tanked so hard that it could realease a new console without missing out on some cash. playstation 2 was just a cash cow.... why would you miss out on some money by swiching to next gen.

His post singled out one detail from the topic which is that the argument about the 360 haveing mor games than the ps3 is flawed. And any way, it makes sense to put the ps2 and original xbox into play. The xbox1 tanked so hard that it could realease a new console without missing out on some cash. playstation 2 was just a cash cow.... why would you miss out on some money by swiching to next gen.yamcake

[QUOTE="Verge_6"][QUOTE="yamcake"]

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]system wars...not company wars.yamcake

WOW way to avoid the topic completely. :)

How did he avoid it? The TC wants SW to use ALL of Microsoft's and Sony's consoles in the system war for this generation, not just the ones recently out. He's wanting to put one whole company agaisnt another, and not just a specific product. His post was more on topic than your's was.

His post singled out one detail from the topic which is that the argument about the 360 haveing mor games than the ps3 is flawed. And any way, it makes sense to put the ps2 and original xbox into play. The xbox1 tanked so hard that it could realease a new console without missing out on some cash. playstation 2 was just a cash cow.... why would you miss out on some money by swiching to next gen.

Hmmm, maybe because we're not living in the past, perhaps? That was the his biggest flaw in his whole unreasonable 'request'. You Sony fans can rant and rave and cry how it's not 'fair' that the 360 didn't wait for the PS3 to release, but all it does is how how out of touch you are with the real world. But, hey, I don't expect a person who gave Blue Dragon a 1.0 to understand.

[QUOTE="yamcake"][QUOTE="Verge_6"][QUOTE="yamcake"]

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]system wars...not company wars.Verge_6

WOW way to avoid the topic completely. :)

How did he avoid it? The TC wants SW to use ALL of Microsoft's and Sony's consoles in the system war for this generation, not just the ones recently out. He's wanting to put one whole company agaisnt another, and not just a specific product. His post was more on topic than your's was.

His post singled out one detail from the topic which is that the argument about the 360 haveing mor games than the ps3 is flawed. And any way, it makes sense to put the ps2 and original xbox into play. The xbox1 tanked so hard that it could realease a new console without missing out on some cash. playstation 2 was just a cash cow.... why would you miss out on some money by swiching to next gen.

Hmmm, maybe because we're not living in the past, perhaps? That was the his biggest flaw in his whole unreasonable 'request'. You Sony fans can rant and rave and cry how it's not 'fair' that the 360 didn't wait for the PS3 to release, but all it does is how how out of touch you are with the real world. But, hey, I don't expect a person who gave Blue Dragon a 1.0 to understand.

Bringing up the ps2 is not living in the past, since GOOD ps2 games are STILL coming out. And since the ps2 continues to outsell and be outplayed over the 360. Sony, as a company, would be stupid to stop supporting that and force their users to upgrade before they are ready. So they continue to support it, and offer the choice to move up to next gen as well. THAT was their plan. Why should ps2 be included in ps3 vs 360? Because that is Sony's modus operandi. It was last generation, and it worked, and it is this generation. And Sony consoles, right now are outselling Microsoft consoles. With more games to play on them to boot.

Edit: edited for spelling.

Bringing up the ps2 is not living in the past, since GOOD ps2 games are STILL coming out. And since the ps2 continues to outsell and be outplayed over the 360. Sony, as a company, would be stupid to stop supporting that and force their users to upgrade before they are ready. So they continue to support it, and offer the choice to move up to next gen as well. THAT was there plan. Why should ps2 be included in ps3 vs 360? Because that is Sony's modus operandi. It was last generation, and it worked, and it is this generation. And Sony consoles, right now are outselling Microsoft consoles. With more games to play on them to boot.

ianuilliam

Yes, it is living in the past, as the PS2 is, get this...NOT a next-gen console. Shoking, I know...but true.

[QUOTE="Thinker_145"]

rant

Medjai

i think it would be best to compare the games the 360 had in its first 9 months with the games the ps3 has right now

i recall that in its first 9 months, the 360 had at least 2 AAA exclusives (GRAW and PD), and a handfull of AA exclusives

right now the ps3 has only 2 AA exclusives....thats it thats all

so its obivous that the 360 was, and still is, the VASTLY superior console

[QUOTE="ianuilliam"]

Bringing up the ps2 is not living in the past, since GOOD ps2 games are STILL coming out. And since the ps2 continues to outsell and be outplayed over the 360. Sony, as a company, would be stupid to stop supporting that and force their users to upgrade before they are ready. So they continue to support it, and offer the choice to move up to next gen as well. THAT was there plan. Why should ps2 be included in ps3 vs 360? Because that is Sony's modus operandi. It was last generation, and it worked, and it is this generation. And Sony consoles, right now are outselling Microsoft consoles. With more games to play on them to boot.

Verge_6

Yes, it is living in the past, as the PS2 is, get this...NOT a next-gen console.

And they're comparing brands. When this is all about SYSTEM WARS.... And 360 vs PS3 not 360 vs PS2 and PS3

How is a logical argument flawed?

Xbox 360 has better games out for it now than the PS3 does, there's no going around that.

The fact that it came out a year earlier is irrelevant, would you have made out the same argument with PS2 and Xbox last gen? I don't think you wouldhave.

[QUOTE="Thinker_145"]

rant

Medjai

thats about sums it up don't forget about the unforgetable false hype about the systems power that sony dished out so people would get excited to buy what turned out to be a blue ray player

t [QUOTE="CaseyWegner"][QUOTE="Thinker_145"][QUOTE="DeadMan1290"]

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"][QUOTE="DeadMan1290"]360 is BC with Xbox games:shock: point is?Thinker_145

That's what I've been trying to say all this time. The TC keeps mixing the gens.

ok. then just compare the 360's launch titles with the ps3 as of today. :?

Dude i read all of your posts and i must say you contradict yourself throughout the whole thread. You make yourself look bad by trying to compare last gen to this gen. Face the FACTS. YOU DO NOT COMPARE 360 TO PS2. YOU COMPARE 360 TO PS3 AND WII. YOU COMPARE XBOX 1 TO PS2 AND GAMECUBE. The ps2 was the only system out before xbox and gamecube launched. You gonna say that its year headstart didn't help them move consoles. They had way more games out before the xbox and gamecube launched. Now this generation is flipped. More 360s are selling than ps3's due to the fact it has a massive library. The wii on the other hand is pulling in non gamers hence why its selling so well. ps3 and 360 are not targeted towards non gamers. Plus the Xbox was a technically superior system to the ps2 yet it ended early cause microsoft wanted to get started on the next generation xbox which is the 360. This argument is so flawed that its not even funny. TC you need to stop and rethink your posts before you continue posting.

Oh and one more thing. Reviews are based off of what that system can do. Exclusives are based off of what the system can do and are not compared to exclusives on other systems. Only multiplats are compared between systems to some degree. Therefore the 360's launch exclusive games and first year games were far better than the ps3's launch exclusive games and so far first year games. The only good game for the ps3's launch was resistance.

Hmmm, maybe because we're not living in the past, perhaps? That was the his biggest flaw in his whole unreasonable 'request'. You Sony fans can rant and rave and cry how it's not 'fair' that the 360 didn't wait for the PS3 to release, but all it does is how how out of touch you are with the real world. But, hey, I don't expect a person who gave Blue Dragon a 1.0 to understand.

Is there a way to delete those? cause i was just messing around, im alittle new here, after i figured out how it worked i rated warhawk. sorry i offended you or something but it was just a simple mistake.

How is a logical argument flawed?

Xbox 360 has better games out for it now than the PS3 does, there's no going around that.

The fact that it came out a year earlier is irrelevant

Donkey_Puncher

Even if you use the 1 year head start argument, the 360 had better games at this point in time last year. Thus, 360 one year ago had better games that PS3 does now.

[QUOTE="ianuilliam"]

Bringing up the ps2 is not living in the past, since GOOD ps2 games are STILL coming out. And since the ps2 continues to outsell and be outplayed over the 360. Sony, as a company, would be stupid to stop supporting that and force their users to upgrade before they are ready. So they continue to support it, and offer the choice to move up to next gen as well. THAT was there plan. Why should ps2 be included in ps3 vs 360? Because that is Sony's modus operandi. It was last generation, and it worked, and it is this generation. And Sony consoles, right now are outselling Microsoft consoles. With more games to play on them to boot.

Verge_6

Yes, it is living in the past, as the PS2 is, get this...NOT a next-gen console.

That's correct. But it is in direct comprtition with next gen consoles, since it is being marketed at the same time. And it wins. Let me break this down in simple terms. Let's say I make a console in year 0 that lasts for 10 years. And you make a console in year 1, and then another in year 5. Now You are saying my console is not competition for yours at the year 7 mark, because mine is not next gen. If it still gets bought and played, by virtue of being designed to have a longer life cycle, it is still competition. The fact that I release a NEW console in year 7, while STILL supporting the old one and including backwards compatibility in the new, does not change the fact that the old one is STILL in competition.

If the 'System Wars' can't really be determined until the end of the generation, than all this 360 is winning or wii is winning is pointless anyway, as the last generation is still being bought and therefore not over. Well, not over for anyone but MS, guess they just flat out admitted defeat. Wonder if they will bow out of the 'next generation' before it is over as well?

You cows are amazing. You guys love living in the past. Face it ps2 is compared to xbox 1 and gamecube. This is not company wars. This is system wars. The ps2 is not next gen. Its last gen now. Get it through your thick SKULL.

Why dont you get that the past effects the future through your thick skull.

[QUOTE="Verge_6"][QUOTE="ianuilliam"]

Bringing up the ps2 is not living in the past, since GOOD ps2 games are STILL coming out. And since the ps2 continues to outsell and be outplayed over the 360. Sony, as a company, would be stupid to stop supporting that and force their users to upgrade before they are ready. So they continue to support it, and offer the choice to move up to next gen as well. THAT was there plan. Why should ps2 be included in ps3 vs 360? Because that is Sony's modus operandi. It was last generation, and it worked, and it is this generation. And Sony consoles, right now are outselling Microsoft consoles. With more games to play on them to boot.

ianuilliam

Yes, it is living in the past, as the PS2 is, get this...NOT a next-gen console.

That's correct. But it is in direct comprtition with next gen consoles, since it is being marketed at the same time. And it wins. Let me break this down in simple terms. Let's say I make a console in year 0 that lasts for 10 years. And you make a console in year 1, and then another in year 5. Now You are saying my console is not competition for yours at the year 7 mark, because mine is not next gen. If it still gets bought and played, by virtue of being designed to have a longer life cycle, it is still competition. The fact that I release a NEW console in year 7, while STILL supporting the old one and including backwards compatibility in the new, does not change the fact that the old one is STILL in competition.

If the 'System Wars' can't really be determined until the end of the generation, than all this 360 is winning or wii is winning is pointless anyway, as the last generation is still being bought and therefore not over. Well, not over for anyone but MS, guess they just flat out admitted defeat. Wonder if they will bow out of the 'next generation' before it is over as well?

When are you Sony fanatics going to get it? You do NOT compare last-gen consoles to next-gen consoles. If you can do that, what is stopping people from bringing in EVERY product that the companies have made into play, hmm?

So xbox 360 has been out for 21 months and the ps3 has been out for 9 months.So do you people claim ownage that your 21 month old console has more games than a 9 month old console.But what do we do?

Hmmm so the 360 was out a whole year early than the ps3.Why dont we see what sony's console was offering in that 1 year.Oh ya how many games did the ps2 have in that 1 year and then add it to the ps3 total and that will be a very fair comparasion.

It isnt ps3 vs 360,it's sony's consoles vs microsoft's consoles.The original xboxwas not getting anything after the 360 launch but obviously the ps2 was still getting plenty of games after the 360 launch.

The camparasion that we do between the ps3 and 360 is just illogical.360 has been out for 21 months and it obviously needed more games to keep those customers happy who bought their console at launch.As for the ps3 it obviously needed less games because it's been only 9 months since people have started buying the ps3.You need time to play games andalthough choice is better sometimes there are so many games that time and money become an issue.If ps3 decides to release 10 quality games every month(now i am not saying that sony can do it if they want to) in order to catch to 360,people will just not have the time and money to play those games.

And comon,isnt it about sony vs microsoft or playstation vs xbox.Yup the latter will do.So i think we should add the ps2 games between the 360 launch and ps3 launch to the playstation library whenever we want to compare the playstation with the 360.This only makes things fairer.

Thinker_145

yamcake

You cows are amazing. You guys love living in the past. Face it ps2 is compared to xbox 1 and gamecube. This is not company wars. This is system wars. The ps2 is not next gen. Its last gen now. Get it through your thick SKULL.

Why dont you get that the past effects the future through your thick skull.

PS2 was succesful in the past, yes. 360 is succesful now, beating the PS3. The Wii caught up to 360 and it's beating it did GC or Xbox beat PS2 last gen???..

yamcake

You cows are amazing. You guys love living in the past. Face it ps2 is compared to xbox 1 and gamecube. This is not company wars. This is system wars. The ps2 is not next gen. Its last gen now. Get it through your thick SKULL.

Why dont you get that the past effects the future through your thick skull.

Then why aren't the 100 million ps2 owners getting a ps3 right now? Oh wait there aren't many good games. If the past affects the future then i guess nintendo would be on top every generation am i right? Since they were the leaders through the NES and SNES generation wouldn't you think they would have been the leaders through the N64 era. Oh wait they weren't.

[QUOTE="ianuilliam"][QUOTE="Verge_6"][QUOTE="ianuilliam"]

Bringing up the ps2 is not living in the past, since GOOD ps2 games are STILL coming out. And since the ps2 continues to outsell and be outplayed over the 360. Sony, as a company, would be stupid to stop supporting that and force their users to upgrade before they are ready. So they continue to support it, and offer the choice to move up to next gen as well. THAT was there plan. Why should ps2 be included in ps3 vs 360? Because that is Sony's modus operandi. It was last generation, and it worked, and it is this generation. And Sony consoles, right now are outselling Microsoft consoles. With more games to play on them to boot.

Verge_6

Yes, it is living in the past, as the PS2 is, get this...NOT a next-gen console.

That's correct. But it is in direct comprtition with next gen consoles, since it is being marketed at the same time. And it wins. Let me break this down in simple terms. Let's say I make a console in year 0 that lasts for 10 years. And you make a console in year 1, and then another in year 5. Now You are saying my console is not competition for yours at the year 7 mark, because mine is not next gen. If it still gets bought and played, by virtue of being designed to have a longer life cycle, it is still competition. The fact that I release a NEW console in year 7, while STILL supporting the old one and including backwards compatibility in the new, does not change the fact that the old one is STILL in competition.

If the 'System Wars' can't really be determined until the end of the generation, than all this 360 is winning or wii is winning is pointless anyway, as the last generation is still being bought and therefore not over. Well, not over for anyone but MS, guess they just flat out admitted defeat. Wonder if they will bow out of the 'next generation' before it is over as well?

When are you Sony fanatics going to get it? You do NOT compare last-gen consoles to next-gen consoles. If you can do that, what is stopping people from bringing in EVERY product that the companies have made into play, hmm?

Because Super Mario Bros 1 for NES was not in market Competition with HALO. They were not made and sold during the same period of time. The PS2 games that came out between Nov 05 and the present ARE in market competition with 360 games that released during the same period. Simple enough answer?

[QUOTE="Verge_6"][QUOTE="ianuilliam"][QUOTE="Verge_6"][QUOTE="ianuilliam"]

Bringing up the ps2 is not living in the past, since GOOD ps2 games are STILL coming out. And since the ps2 continues to outsell and be outplayed over the 360. Sony, as a company, would be stupid to stop supporting that and force their users to upgrade before they are ready. So they continue to support it, and offer the choice to move up to next gen as well. THAT was there plan. Why should ps2 be included in ps3 vs 360? Because that is Sony's modus operandi. It was last generation, and it worked, and it is this generation. And Sony consoles, right now are outselling Microsoft consoles. With more games to play on them to boot.

ianuilliam

Yes, it is living in the past, as the PS2 is, get this...NOT a next-gen console.

That's correct. But it is in direct comprtition with next gen consoles, since it is being marketed at the same time. And it wins. Let me break this down in simple terms. Let's say I make a console in year 0 that lasts for 10 years. And you make a console in year 1, and then another in year 5. Now You are saying my console is not competition for yours at the year 7 mark, because mine is not next gen. If it still gets bought and played, by virtue of being designed to have a longer life cycle, it is still competition. The fact that I release a NEW console in year 7, while STILL supporting the old one and including backwards compatibility in the new, does not change the fact that the old one is STILL in competition.

If the 'System Wars' can't really be determined until the end of the generation, than all this 360 is winning or wii is winning is pointless anyway, as the last generation is still being bought and therefore not over. Well, not over for anyone but MS, guess they just flat out admitted defeat. Wonder if they will bow out of the 'next generation' before it is over as well?

When are you Sony fanatics going to get it? You do NOT compare last-gen consoles to next-gen consoles. If you can do that, what is stopping people from bringing in EVERY product that the companies have made into play, hmm?

Because Super Mario Bros 1 for NES was not in market Competition with HALO. They were not made and sold during the same period of time. The PS2 games that came out between Nov 05 and the present ARE in market competition with 360 games that released during the same period. Simple enough answer?

So, a last-gen console CAN be compared to a next-gen console, just because it has not been discontinued, defying all rules and barriers of this board and simple logistics. And EVEN when it isn't the primary focus of it's maker, and the number of games being developed for it are greatly smaller in comparison to those for itssuccessor.Awesome, great to know my species still has hope. Here's what I find funny, the ONLY people agreeing with the TC are low-level and low-post-count accounts with PSN tags in their profiles. Interesting.

so this was all fine when the ps2 had the release advantage.....Kronos6

/thread

[QUOTE="yamcake"]sirk1264

You cows are amazing. You guys love living in the past. Face it ps2 is compared to xbox 1 and gamecube. This is not company wars. This is system wars. The ps2 is not next gen. Its last gen now. Get it through your thick SKULL.

Why dont you get that the past effects the future through your thick skull.

Then why aren't the 100 million ps2 owners getting a ps3 right now? Oh wait there aren't many good games. If the past affects the future then i guess nintendo would be on top every generation am i right? Since they were the leaders through the NES and SNES generation wouldn't you think they would have been the leaders through the N64 era. Oh wait they weren't.

You misunderstood me. since the ps2 was so succesful the ps3 was late in launching (also the blu-ray delays) thus the ps3 has less games right now. and as a previous poster said, the ps3 has until november to get some good games.