This topic is locked from further discussion.
Really, the only flawed arguement was PS3 has no games. I mean 360 didn't either until Gears came out. PS3 still has till November and lots of games are coming before the release (Ratchet and Haze)BlazeDragon132
The Xbox 360 had Kameo, PGR3, Condemned, Oblivion, FNR3, PD0, and Dead Rising before Gears of War came out.
All scored 8.0 and above.
Really, the only flawed arguement was PS3 has no games. I mean 360 didn't either until Gears came out. PS3 still has till November and lots of games are coming before the release (Ratchet and Haze)BlazeDragon132
Before GeoW 360 had some2 AAA titles already, PS3 has AAA titles but are they exclusive, they're all just ports and remakes.
Ya it's probably not sony vs microsoft.But it is the playstation brand of consoles vs xbox brand of consoles.By saying that the 360 has far more games that the ps3,u cannot say that thus xbox>playstation.You gotta compare them in a set timeframe.Go ahead and compare the original xbox and xbox 360 lineup of the last 2 years with that of the ps2 and ps3 and you will which brand still offers better gaming.[QUOTE="Thinker_145"][QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]system wars...not company wars.CaseyWegner
no. it's the individual system against the other individual systems.
Since when??? Ive always seen it like Console brand to another, its practically like that just that many people dont always do that but its been like that since 4 ever.
[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]Ya it's probably not sony vs microsoft.But it is the playstation brand of consoles vs xbox brand of consoles.By saying that the 360 has far more games that the ps3,u cannot say that thus xbox>playstation.You gotta compare them in a set timeframe.Go ahead and compare the original xbox and xbox 360 lineup of the last 2 years with that of the ps2 and ps3 and you will which brand still offers better gaming.[QUOTE="Thinker_145"][QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]system wars...not company wars.Blanco98
no. it's the individual system against the other individual systems.
Since when??? Ive always seen it like Console brand to another, its practically like that just that many people dont always do that but its been like that since 4 ever.since the forum was created.
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
Sounds like you're not confident enough in the PS3, that you have to lean on the PS2 for assurance...
I just read the whole thread and it's nothing but contradictions (from the TC, anyways)... A past-gen console CANNOT be compared to a current-gen console. It is fair that the 360 came out [almost] a year before the PS3 (that's what Sony did last-gen).
PS2 games are not included as PS3 games, just like Xbox games are not included as 360 games, because of backwards compatibilit.
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?Thinker_145
So we're supposed to just throw away the titles?
I dunno if thats a smart move..some of PS2's best games came out in its first year..you sure you wanna just disregard the headstart and say those games don't count?
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
ACtually it is your argument that is flawed...360 has more games NOW period. You can make up whatever excuses you want but 360 has more games...so what if it has had an headstart over PS3, the simple fact is that 360 has a much bigger library than PS.
[QUOTE="jimm895"]what are you smokin dude? ...PS3 maybe in theory has better hardware but show me one game that proves it?MGS4The TC has a good idea of what is real world facts.
One thing that Sony has over M$ is the fact that each system was years ahead of it's time.
The PS2 had more going for it than the XBOX (the PS2 could be used with HDTV's with better graphics via component cables BTDT).
The 360 was released to meet the PS2 standards and have a slight edge over the PS2 (NOT A TRUE NEXT GENERATION SYSTEM).
Sony released the PS3 that is years ahead of the 360 in technology and hardware (A TRUE NEXT GENERATION SYSTEM).
With this that means that all the consoles and games has to be counted into the total numbers.
Medjai
[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]system wars...not company wars.Thinker_145Ya it's probably not sony vs microsoft.But it is the playstation brand of consoles vs xbox brand of consoles.By saying that the 360 has far more games that the ps3,u cannot say that thus xbox>playstation.You gotta compare them in a set timeframe.Go ahead and compare the original xbox and xbox 360 lineup of the last 2 years with that of the ps2 and ps3 and you will seewhich brand still offers better gaming.
I doubt many people went "XBOX... Microsoft... XBOX BRAND! I'm getting it!" And I'm almost 100% positive 90% of the people on these boards who bought a PS3, bought it because of the PS Brand.
your argument is flawed, you can't just penalise the leader for being the leader. fact isright now the 360 does not only have more games it has better games.e10mgs
take that! to satisfy the original poster, someone should tell him how the 360 did in its first 9 months
What I got from this thread was that the PS3 has the PS2 library + the PS3 library, so therefore it is superior to XBOX 360.
I counter this with me buying a PS2 and a 360 for $100 less than the cost of a PS3. Do I win?
[QUOTE="Thinker_145"]No because u people needed that enjoyment.The 360 was the only active MS console for the last 21months whereas the ps3 has only been active for 9 months.So obviously the overall enjoyment that a 360 launch owner would have got wouldbe higher than that of a ps3 launch owner.[QUOTE="Ninja-Vox"]So basically your whole post "but the 360 has been out longer." So what you're saying to 360 fanboys is that it's unfair that they enjoy more games than PS3 fanboys because the 360 has been out longer? So they should decrease their enjoyment of said games accordingly?DeadMan1290
Nobody is asking u to decrease ur enjoyment.All i am saying is that u cant claim ownage on that.It's almost like saying that 360 got a year headstart,we started playing games a year early andu people just had nothing to playin that year.Well no we hadps2 games to play which rival the best of 360.It doesnt matter whetherur previous console was dead,we can still enjoy our previous console during the time ournext console was delayed.
So by YOUR logic. We can compare Last-Gen games with Current-Gen games ok.....Halo 2 is better than Lair....Is that a fair comparison????? No....because I'm comparing a LAST-Gen game with a CURRENT-Gen game.
What's up with this next-gen last-gen crap.Games are games.Halo 2 can be compared to lair.It's simple halo2 is a better game overall.The only thing lair has over halo 2 is graphics.See it's as simple as that.If u think that halo 2 cant be compared to lair then you must also think that you cannot compare a wii game to a ps3 game.
It really doesn't make your situation in the console war look good if you try to use last-gen as a reason why this gen is better.Verge_6I clearly didnt.:?
What's up with this next-gen last-gen crap.Games are games.Halo 2 can be compared to lair.It's simple halo2 is a better game overall.The only thing lair has over halo 2 is graphics.See it's as simple as that.If u think that halo 2 cant be compared to lair then you must also think that you cannot compare a wii game to a ps3 game.
Thinker_145
maybe you should read the last few pages, you've been eaten alive in this thread. You obviously don't know how this forum works, Casey has schooled you and you just have no clue. Seriously do yourself a favor and leave SW, because you just don't get it.
[QUOTE="DeadMan1290"][QUOTE="Thinker_145"][QUOTE="Medjai"]Sorry but standards change over time.Compare the 2 in the SAME time frame.first 9 mths 360 had9 AA+E
Kameo, PGR3, PDZ, GeoWars, DOA4, Graw, Top Spin 2, Dead Rising, and Saints Row
PS3 9mths 5 AA+E
R:FoM, Tekken 5: DR, MLB:07, Sigma (I will give it to you), Warhawk
Medjai
That is the same time fram. First 9 months of each.
Thinker you can't fault the 360 for having the foresite of launching first...Sony thought the were gonna dominate because the had been dominating for ten years...they wanted their console to have their BD format, it held up the release date which was pushed back multiple times if I remember correctly...Sony launched their consolewhen they thought was the right time.The right time waswhen the graphical and technological difference between your current and latest console is enough to justify the move.Clearly the graphical gap between xbox and xbox 360 is not enough to truly call it next-gen whereas the difference between ps2 and 3 is the only truly next-gen difference between any of the 3 consoles.Blue ray is clearly required in games so it was a good move on the part of sony.I'll ask again,when MS launched the 360,what about their loyal fans who had bought the xbox thinking they would be gaming on it for years.And launching 360 earlyhas brought so many drawbacks now that it ultimately was a bad move for MS.Just look at those record breaking hardware issues which have mainly occuredbecause MS wanted to be there first.Who knows sony delayed their console so they can make sure it's not a faulty one.I think it's worth delaying your console for that matter.
[QUOTE="Medjai"][QUOTE="DeadMan1290"][QUOTE="Thinker_145"][QUOTE="Medjai"]Sorry but standards change over time.Compare the 2 in the SAME time frame.first 9 mths 360 had9 AA+E
Kameo, PGR3, PDZ, GeoWars, DOA4, Graw, Top Spin 2, Dead Rising, and Saints Row
PS3 9mths 5 AA+E
R:FoM, Tekken 5: DR, MLB:07, Sigma (I will give it to you), Warhawk
Thinker_145
That is the same time fram. First 9 months of each.
Thinker you can't fault the 360 for having the foresite of launching first...Sony thought the were gonna dominate because the had been dominating for ten years...they wanted their console to have their BD format, it held up the release date which was pushed back multiple times if I remember correctly...Sony launched their consolewhen they thought was the right time.The right time waswhen the graphical and technological difference between your current and latest console is enough to justify the move.Clearly the graphical gap between xbox and xbox 360 is not enough to truly call it next-gen whereas the difference between ps2 and 3 is the only truly next-gen difference between any of the 3 consoles.Blue ray is clearly required in games so it was a good move on the part of sony.No, that is not why. Do some research or post your sources if you're going to make such claims. And even if it is true, why is it that 360 game still look better than PS3 games. Ontop of that, why do multiplat games look better on the 360 99% of the time?
So when is this argument going to be fair, TC? To my knowledge, the 360 is always going to have a one year advantage on the PS3, and it will always reap the benefits. Should we just disregard it for the next 4 years because it's "unfair" to compare it to the PS3? Did anyone disregard the PS2 because of its one year advantage on the Xbox and GC? No. It had the most games, and nobody cared why.Gamer556I told you already,add the ps2 games of the timeframe when 360 was alone into the ps3 library and then you have a fair comparasion.But lemmings are too afraid to accept that as they know the 360 would be destroyed if that happened.:lol:
[QUOTE="Thinker_145"][QUOTE="DeadMan1290"]Wow i cant believe that u casey would bring in(i have to say it) such a stupid thing in this kind of a debate.Atleast u should have said that according to a website.But wait dont standatds change overtime so how can u compare the review scores of the 360 launch with the ps3 launch when both of them are a year apart.DeadMan1290
Another reason why 360 launch was better than the ps3 is because MS just abandoned the original xbox.How can this simply be ignored and everybody be happy saying that the 360 had a good launch.
As for what u said,
Resistance>PDZ(gamerankings>gamespot)
RR7>RR6(self explanatory).So the 2 ps3 lauch games beat 2 360 exclusive launch games which are touted in the 360 library.I'll admit the ps3 has nothing exclusive in comparasion to PGR3 so far.
It's called Move On To Nex-Gen ;).....MS dumped the Xbox and it's bringing them sucess in the NEXT-GEN business, Sony is still stuck with the PS2....Mmmm wonder why?
Wii takes over 360 sales.Hardware failures reach a new level.
I dont think what you said is true.
Has better games, sells better than PS3 and has the best Online service. Faulty hardware will hopefully bne fixed in the future if not 360 is just doomed. Wii is not meant to compete with 360 or PS3.
Link showing better WORLDWIDE sales?[QUOTE="Thinker_145"]Under what criteria?Reviews!well didnt u know that standards change over time and you cant compare using review scores of different years.CaseyWegner
after only nine months? :?
U said compare 360 launch with what ps3 currently has.That's obviously more than a year of difference.:|wasnt something like this made a long time ago? Are u trying to convince yourself that the PS3 has greater games then the xbox360...... U=MAJOR SONY FANBOYzaid55Ps2's last 21 months+ps3>xbox 360.U can also put it this way,ps2's last 21 months+ps3>xbox 1's last 21 months and xbox 360.
[QUOTE="Verge_6"][QUOTE="yamcake"][QUOTE="Verge_6"][QUOTE="yamcake"][QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]system wars...not company wars.ianuilliam
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.
This is thevery purpose of this thread and you just said it ALL.If PDZ came in late 2006,it wouldnt have got AAA.Why are these things so hard to understand.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
JB730
[QUOTE="DeadMan1290"][QUOTE="Thinker_145"][QUOTE="DeadMan1290"]Wow i cant believe that u casey would bring in(i have to say it) such a stupid thing in this kind of a debate.Atleast u should have said that according to a website.But wait dont standatds change overtime so how can u compare the review scores of the 360 launch with the ps3 launch when both of them are a year apart.Thinker_145
Another reason why 360 launch was better than the ps3 is because MS just abandoned the original xbox.How can this simply be ignored and everybody be happy saying that the 360 had a good launch.
As for what u said,
Resistance>PDZ(gamerankings>gamespot)
RR7>RR6(self explanatory).So the 2 ps3 lauch games beat 2 360 exclusive launch games which are touted in the 360 library.I'll admit the ps3 has nothing exclusive in comparasion to PGR3 so far.
It's called Move On To Nex-Gen ;).....MS dumped the Xbox and it's bringing them sucess in the NEXT-GEN business, Sony is still stuck with the PS2....Mmmm wonder why?
Wii takes over 360 sales.Hardware failures reach a new level.
I dont think what you said is true.
Has better games, sells better than PS3 and has the best Online service. Faulty hardware will hopefully bne fixed in the future if not 360 is just doomed. Wii is not meant to compete with 360 or PS3.
Link showing better WORLDWIDE sales?You're still at this?? Damn, you stubborn as heck. And you need a LINK to know that PS3s have sold around 5 million and 360s have sold 12 million. You a real Cow. Jeez.
9months vs 21months- who cares?
at the end of the day- Xbox360 has MORE games- no need to explain why- we all know because its been out longer. thread over.
[QUOTE="Thinker_145"]t [QUOTE="CaseyWegner"][QUOTE="Thinker_145"][QUOTE="DeadMan1290"]The PS2 had better games than the Xbox, but my point is that it's still PS3 vs 360.[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"][QUOTE="DeadMan1290"]360 is BC with Xbox games:shock: point is?sirk1264
That's what I've been trying to say all this time. The TC keeps mixing the gens.
Just tell me is it fair to compare the library of a 21 moth old console vs a 9 month old console.ok. then just compare the 360's launch titles with the ps3 as of today. :?
Under what criteria?Reviews!well didnt u know that standards change over time and you cant compare using review scores of different years.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.
Link showing worldwide sales?system wars...not company wars.CaseyWegner
:? i don't even think he said sony or MS in his post :? meh.
By the 21 month mark PS3 will have tonnes of great games. Haters will realise.
[QUOTE="ianuilliam"][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.
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?
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.
Meh!Isnt this supposed to be an open forum for people to discuss everything games.[QUOTE="Thinker_145"]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?xDonRobx
So we're supposed to just throw away the titles?
I dunno if thats a smart move..some of PS2's best games came out in its first year..you sure you wanna just disregard the headstart and say those games don't count?
Why did you not read what i said after that????:|[QUOTE="Verge_6"]It really doesn't make your situation in the console war look good if you try to use last-gen as a reason why this gen is better.Thinker_145I clearly didnt.:?
Really? Then would you kindly explain why you made this post then?
I told you already,add the ps2 games of the timeframe when 360 was alone into the ps3 library and then you have a fair comparasion
thinker_145
Hmmm, not only did you contradict yourself yet AGAIN, but you've made this statement PRIOR to your reply. Tell me, do you even know where you're going with this, or are you making up this crap as you go?
[QUOTE="Thinker_145"][QUOTE="DeadMan1290"][QUOTE="Thinker_145"][QUOTE="DeadMan1290"]Wow i cant believe that u casey would bring in(i have to say it) such a stupid thing in this kind of a debate.Atleast u should have said that according to a website.But wait dont standatds change overtime so how can u compare the review scores of the 360 launch with the ps3 launch when both of them are a year apart.DeadMan1290
Another reason why 360 launch was better than the ps3 is because MS just abandoned the original xbox.How can this simply be ignored and everybody be happy saying that the 360 had a good launch.
As for what u said,
Resistance>PDZ(gamerankings>gamespot)
RR7>RR6(self explanatory).So the 2 ps3 lauch games beat 2 360 exclusive launch games which are touted in the 360 library.I'll admit the ps3 has nothing exclusive in comparasion to PGR3 so far.
It's called Move On To Nex-Gen ;).....MS dumped the Xbox and it's bringing them sucess in the NEXT-GEN business, Sony is still stuck with the PS2....Mmmm wonder why?
Wii takes over 360 sales.Hardware failures reach a new level.
I dont think what you said is true.
Has better games, sells better than PS3 and has the best Online service. Faulty hardware will hopefully bne fixed in the future if not 360 is just doomed. Wii is not meant to compete with 360 or PS3.
Link showing better WORLDWIDE sales?You're still at this?? Damn, you stubborn as heck. And you need a LINK to know that PS3s have sold around 5 million and 360s have sold 12 million. You a real Cow. Jeez.
So this just shows that the ps3 is selling better.360 had sold around 9 million when the ps3 launced so clealry ps3 is selling better.[QUOTE="Apathetic-Irony"][QUOTE="Thinker_145"][QUOTE="Medjai"][QUOTE="DeadMan1290"][QUOTE="Thinker_145"][QUOTE="Medjai"]Sorry but standards change over time.Compare the 2 in the SAME time frame.first 9 mths 360 had9 AA+E
Kameo, PGR3, PDZ, GeoWars, DOA4, Graw, Top Spin 2, Dead Rising, and Saints Row
PS3 9mths 5 AA+E
R:FoM, Tekken 5: DR, MLB:07, Sigma (I will give it to you), Warhawk
Thinker_145
That is the same time fram. First 9 months of each.
Thinker you can't fault the 360 for having the foresite of launching first...Sony thought the were gonna dominate because the had been dominating for ten years...they wanted their console to have their BD format, it held up the release date which was pushed back multiple times if I remember correctly...Sony launched their consolewhen they thought was the right time.The right time waswhen the graphical and technological difference between your current and latest console is enough to justify the move.Clearly the graphical gap between xbox and xbox 360 is not enough to truly call it next-gen whereas the difference between ps2 and 3 is the only truly next-gen difference between any of the 3 consoles.Blue ray is clearly required in games so it was a good move on the part of sony.No, that is not why. Do some research or post your sources if you're going to make such claims. And even if it is true, why is it that 360 game still look better than PS3 games. Ontop of that, why do multiplat games look better on the 360 99% of the time?
When did i say that ps3 has better graphics than 360.The thing is that xbox was in a different league graphically vs the ps2.Surely the difference wasnt as huge as the wii vs 360/ps3 but it was still significant.A console should have crysis level graphics if it can call itself the true successor of the original xbox.And it's not just graphics.The ps2 had DVD storage media and no standard HDD.The ps3 has blue ray storage media and standard HDD.
The original xbox had DVD storage media and standard HDD.The 360 has DVD storage media and no standard HDD???U see the difference now.
I like how you ignore some posts but go after others.
You said the PS3 was delayed so the jump from hardware between current and next would be greater, correct? Well I don't see how the 360 would need to wait a year for HDD and HD-DVD support. Microsoft still doesn't support the format entirely ("HD-DVD is not yet a proven format"...), so how would a year wait make a difference? HDD Support was an internal decision from the start.
The PS3 did not hold out for a greater leap in hardware. It waited so it could double the price of the PS2 and push its own format, the Blu-Ray, onto its consumers. If Sony never started with the Blu-Ray format, the PS3 would not have HD-DVD.
Since when do you need a link to know that the 360 is selling better than the PS3?! That's a well-known fact!scorch-62Only in the US.Not worldwide or you can show me a link if you are so confident.
I clearly didnt.:?[QUOTE="Thinker_145"][QUOTE="Verge_6"]It really doesn't make your situation in the console war look good if you try to use last-gen as a reason why this gen is better.Verge_6
Really? Then would you kindly explain why you made this post then?
I told you already,add the ps2 games of the timeframe when 360 was alone into the ps3 library and then you have a fair comparasion
thinker_145
Hmmm, not only did you contradict yourself yet AGAIN, but you've made this statement PRIOR to your reply. Tell me, do you even know where you're going with this, or are you making up this crap as you go?
Why is this being ignored? Too true?
[QUOTE="sirk1264"][QUOTE="Thinker_145"]t [QUOTE="CaseyWegner"][QUOTE="Thinker_145"][QUOTE="DeadMan1290"]The PS2 had better games than the Xbox, but my point is that it's still PS3 vs 360.[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.
Just tell me is it fair to compare the library of a 21 moth old console vs a 9 month old console.ok. then just compare the 360's launch titles with the ps3 as of today. :?
Under what criteria?Reviews!well didnt u know that standards change over time and you cant compare using review scores of different years.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.
Link showing worldwide sales?PS3 selling about the same as the 360 nowI clearly didnt.:?[QUOTE="Thinker_145"][QUOTE="Verge_6"]It really doesn't make your situation in the console war look good if you try to use last-gen as a reason why this gen is better.Verge_6
Really? Then would you kindly explain why you made this post then?
I told you already,add the ps2 games of the timeframe when 360 was alone into the ps3 library and then you have a fair comparasion
thinker_145
Hmmm, not only did you contradict yourself yet AGAIN, but you've made this statement PRIOR to your reply. Tell me, do you even know where you're going with this, or are you making up this crap as you go?
When did i say that the ps2 games make ps3 better.I used ps2 games to demonstate that playstation consoles>xbox consoles as of now in 2007.When did i say that ps3>xbox 360 due to ps2 games.[QUOTE="Verge_6"]I clearly didnt.:?[QUOTE="Thinker_145"][QUOTE="Verge_6"]It really doesn't make your situation in the console war look good if you try to use last-gen as a reason why this gen is better.Thinker_145
Really? Then would you kindly explain why you made this post then?
I told you already,add the ps2 games of the timeframe when 360 was alone into the ps3 library and then you have a fair comparasion
thinker_145
Hmmm, not only did you contradict yourself yet AGAIN, but you've made this statement PRIOR to your reply. Tell me, do you even know where you're going with this, or are you making up this crap as you go?
When did i say that the ps2 games make ps3 better.I used ps2 games to demonstate that playstation consoles>xbox consoles as of now in 2007.When did i say that ps3>xbox 360 due to ps2 games....You MUST be joking. Please, for the love of all the gods, tell me you are joking. You stated, and I quote, "add the ps2 games of the timeframe when 360 was alone into the ps3 library and then you have a fair comparasion". And even after that, you state that you NEVER said it? If this is how you debate (and it seems to be, judging from this contradicting piece of tripe thread), then there is nothing left for me to do here than simply sit back and watch as you frantically try to cover your mistakes.
[QUOTE="Thinker_145"][QUOTE="Apathetic-Irony"][QUOTE="Thinker_145"][QUOTE="Medjai"][QUOTE="DeadMan1290"][QUOTE="Thinker_145"][QUOTE="Medjai"]Sorry but standards change over time.Compare the 2 in the SAME time frame.first 9 mths 360 had9 AA+E
Kameo, PGR3, PDZ, GeoWars, DOA4, Graw, Top Spin 2, Dead Rising, and Saints Row
PS3 9mths 5 AA+E
R:FoM, Tekken 5: DR, MLB:07, Sigma (I will give it to you), Warhawk
Apathetic-Irony
That is the same time fram. First 9 months of each.
Thinker you can't fault the 360 for having the foresite of launching first...Sony thought the were gonna dominate because the had been dominating for ten years...they wanted their console to have their BD format, it held up the release date which was pushed back multiple times if I remember correctly...Sony launched their consolewhen they thought was the right time.The right time waswhen the graphical and technological difference between your current and latest console is enough to justify the move.Clearly the graphical gap between xbox and xbox 360 is not enough to truly call it next-gen whereas the difference between ps2 and 3 is the only truly next-gen difference between any of the 3 consoles.Blue ray is clearly required in games so it was a good move on the part of sony.No, that is not why. Do some research or post your sources if you're going to make such claims. And even if it is true, why is it that 360 game still look better than PS3 games. Ontop of that, why do multiplat games look better on the 360 99% of the time?
When did i say that ps3 has better graphics than 360.The thing is that xbox was in a different league graphically vs the ps2.Surely the difference wasnt as huge as the wii vs 360/ps3 but it was still significant.A console should have crysis level graphics if it can call itself the true successor of the original xbox.And it's not just graphics.The ps2 had DVD storage media and no standard HDD.The ps3 has blue ray storage media and standard HDD.
The original xbox had DVD storage media and standard HDD.The 360 has DVD storage media and no standard HDD???U see the difference now.
I like how you ignore some posts but go after others.
You said the PS3 was delayed so the jump from hardware between current and next would be greater, correct? Well I don't see how the 360 would need to wait a year for HDD and HD-DVD support. Microsoft still doesn't support the format entirely ("HD-DVD is not yet a proven format"...), so how would a year wait make a difference? HDD Support was an internal decision from the start.
The PS3 did not hold out for a greater leap in hardware. It waited so it could double the price of the PS2 and push its own format, the Blu-Ray, onto its consumers. If Sony never started with the Blu-Ray format, the PS3 would not have HD-DVD.
Sorry but blue ray is for games.Moviesare just an extra advantage.Does the 360 has DVD for movies,no it obviously has it for games first movies second.And how many DVD's was blue dragon on?What did kojima say about blue ray in games?What did epic say about it being a limitation and they will have to see the options available for UT3 on 360?What did rockstar say?I can go on but clearly if u think that blue ray is not needed in a HD console capable of 1080pthen i dont know what you are saying.
[QUOTE="Thinker_145"][QUOTE="Verge_6"]I clearly didnt.:?[QUOTE="Thinker_145"][QUOTE="Verge_6"]It really doesn't make your situation in the console war look good if you try to use last-gen as a reason why this gen is better.Verge_6
Really? Then would you kindly explain why you made this post then?
I told you already,add the ps2 games of the timeframe when 360 was alone into the ps3 library and then you have a fair comparasion
thinker_145
Hmmm, not only did you contradict yourself yet AGAIN, but you've made this statement PRIOR to your reply. Tell me, do you even know where you're going with this, or are you making up this crap as you go?
When did i say that the ps2 games make ps3 better.I used ps2 games to demonstate that playstation consoles>xbox consoles as of now in 2007.When did i say that ps3>xbox 360 due to ps2 games....You MUST be joking. Please, for the love of all the gods, tell me you are joking. You stated, and I quote, "add the ps2 games of the timeframe when 360 was alone into the ps3 library and then you have a fair comparasion". And even after that, you state that you NEVER said it? If this is how you debate (and it seems to be, judging from this contradicting piece of tripe thread), then there is nothing left for me to do here than simply sit back and watch as you frantically try to cover your mistakes.
And why the hell uignore what i said right after that comment,"It isnt ps3 vs 360,it's sony's consoles vs microsoft's consoles.The original xbox was not getting anything after the 360 launch but obviously the ps2 was still getting plenty of games after the 360 launch"
And then towards the end,
"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."
I am not writing a proffesional document over here that everything has to be perfect.I clearly didnt mean what u think i meant.You are just trying too hard.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment