There is no need for 3 systems!

[QUOTE="Spybot_9"][QUOTE="CaseyWegner"][QUOTE="sparkypants"][QUOTE="metroidfood"]

Lol wut?

Doesn't the 360 not only have more users than the PS3 but also more exclusives, thereby justifying its existence?

CaseyWegner

yeah but most of its said exclusives usally end up on the PC...I though I made that point relevant

but they don't. :?

*sigh*

the only AAAE it has lost is gears. how is that most?

Firslty PDZ is not AAA.Gamerankings opinion>Gamespot opinion.

Mass effect is AAA and that it lost.

GRAW was AAAE and it lost it in the form of GRAW 2 going to the PS3.

As you said it also lost gears of war which was it's best game.

The only AAAE it didnt lose is forza 2.Wii has more AAAE's at gamerankings than the 360 and soon the PS3 will have as well.

Hmm and why are you ignoring the fact that the TC isnt saying the the 360 is a bad console but that it isnt needed.

Most of the 360's thrid party AAE's are there becasue of "default",because it was the only next gen console for 1 year.You are ignoring that it came a year earlier and that's why it has more exclusives.Now since the PS3 has come I dont see any AA third party exclusives anymore and most of the 360's first party games end up on the PC so what's the point of that console?

You cant include games like saints row,GRAW and dead rising in this argument.As I said those games are exclusive to the 360 because of "default",saints row 2 isnt,GRAW 2 isnt and I am sure neither will dead rising 2 be.

Really in all seriousness the only 2 noteworthy exclusives the 360 has are the 2 racing games forza 2 and PGR4.Halo 3 isnt exclsuive.

Once a sequel goes multiplat then the importance of the previous games exclusisvity is pretty much dead IMO UNLESS you are talking final fantasy whose every game is completely different.

Spybot_9

when did i ever ignore that? :?

it doesn't matter if they're there by default. they exist...they count. sequels don't take anything away from them.

halo 3 is exclusive until announced otherwise.

[QUOTE="Spybot_9"]

Hmm and why are you ignoring the fact that the TC isnt saying the the 360 is a bad console but that it isnt needed.

Most of the 360's thrid party AAE's are there becasue of "default",because it was the only next gen console for 1 year.You are ignoring that it came a year earlier and that's why it has more exclusives.Now since the PS3 has come I dont see any AA third party exclusives anymore and most of the 360's first party games end up on the PC so what's the point of that console?

You cant include games like saints row,GRAW and dead rising in this argument.As I said those games are exclusive to the 360 because of "default",saints row 2 isnt,GRAW 2 isnt and I am sure neither will dead rising 2 be.

Really in all seriousness the only 2 noteworthy exclusives the 360 has are the 2 racing games forza 2 and PGR4.Halo 3 isnt exclsuive.

Once a sequel goes multiplat then the importance of the previous games exclusisvity is pretty much dead IMO UNLESS you are talking final fantasy whose every game is completely different.

CaseyWegner

when did i ever ignore that? :?

it doesn't matter if they're there by default. they exist...they count. sequels don't take anything away from them.

halo 3 is exclusive until announced otherwise.

lots of shovelware and obscure games that aren't even available. this is why we go by scores.CaseyWegner

...but scores are a matter of opinion while one might say ione game is crap another might love the game, that is why a list of games without a biased opinion is a more accurate piece of evidance.

and to chaos...Wikipedia is a valid sorce, they use moderaters to make sure all listed items are fact and if not they are deleted, and also they have a list of sources on the bottom of the page. If this doesnt suite your taste Im sorry, if you would care to pull up a more accurate list that would be great(but remember I just want a list of exclusives with no biased opinion)

Well ok to put it better it lost most of it's AAAE's to other platforms.

Firslty PDZ is not AAA.Gamerankings opinion>Gamespot opinion.

Mass effect is AAA and that it lost.

GRAW was AAAE and it lost it in the form of GRAW 2 going to the PS3.

As you said it also lost gears of war which was it's best game.

The only AAAE it didnt lose is forza 2.Wii has more AAAE's at gamerankings than the 360 and soon the PS3 will have as well.

Spybot_9

still wrong. the only AAAE the 360 has ever lost is gears of war.

gamespot is what matters here and therefore there are 4 AAAEs. the wii is tied with it as far as that goes.

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]lots of shovelware and obscure games that aren't even available. this is why we go by scores.sparkypants

...but scores are a matter of opinion while one might say ione game is crap another might love the game, that is why a list of games without a biased opinion is a more accurate piece of evidance.

and to chaos...Wikipedia is a valid sorce, they use moderaters to make sure all listed items are fact and if not they are deleted, and also they have a list of sources on the bottom of the page. If this doesnt suite your taste Im sorry, if you would care to pull up a more accurate list that would be great(but remember I just want a list of exclusives with no biased opinion)

we have to have some standards here.

I think Casey won that debate lol.Unforgiven2870

How, by denying my claims with invalid sources? He has yet to proven my statements are false by presenting accurate evidence. He is using scores as a way of fact, when they are in fact opinion and by doing so he left out a whole section of games which he deems "obscure"...so please elaborate on this for me, because I fail to understand your logic.

[QUOTE="Unforgiven2870"]

I think Casey won that debate lol.sparkypants

How, by denying my claims with invalid sources? He has yet to proven my statements are false by presenting accurate evidence. He is using scores as a way of fact, when they are in fact opinion and by doing so he left out a whole section of games which he deems "obscure"...so please elaborate on this for me, because I fail to understand your logic.

I hated last gen(as well as this gen) for creating so many systems because Im one of those gamers that wants the best from all worlds...but has a small budget.sparkypants

we have to have some standards here.

CaseyWegner

So ignoring the rest of the world and focusing ONLY on GameSpots ratings(a site who's rating have been proven rigged) is a set standard? How?wouldnt an unbiased list of titles from mulitple sources be a more accurate method? What about sales, thats not a accurate standard as well?

[QUOTE="sparkypants"][QUOTE="Unforgiven2870"]

I think Casey won that debate lol.Unforgiven2870

How, by denying my claims with invalid sources? He has yet to proven my statements are false by presenting accurate evidence. He is using scores as a way of fact, when they are in fact opinion and by doing so he left out a whole section of games which he deems "obscure"...so please elaborate on this for me, because I fail to understand your logic.

Maybe you should pay more attention, I have presented an unbiased list from a 3rd party source PROVING the 360 has less eclusive titles in fact...it is on THIS page.

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

we have to have some standards here.

sparkypants

So ignoring the rest of the world and focusing ONLY on GameSpots ratings(a site who's rating have been proven rigged) is a set standard? How?wouldnt an unbiased list of titles from mulitple sources be a more accurate method? What about sales, thats not a accurate standard as well?

i already said that not much changes even if you use gamerankings instead. and how have gamespot's reviews been proven rigged? :?

[QUOTE="Unforgiven2870"][QUOTE="sparkypants"][QUOTE="Unforgiven2870"]

I think Casey won that debate lol.sparkypants

How, by denying my claims with invalid sources? He has yet to proven my statements are false by presenting accurate evidence. He is using scores as a way of fact, when they are in fact opinion and by doing so he left out a whole section of games which he deems "obscure"...so please elaborate on this for me, because I fail to understand your logic.

Maybe you should pay more attention, I have presented an unbiased list from a 3rd party source PROVING the 360 has less eclusive titles in fact...it is on THIS page.

[QUOTE="sparkypants"][QUOTE="Unforgiven2870"][QUOTE="sparkypants"][QUOTE="Unforgiven2870"]

I think Casey won that debate lol.Unforgiven2870

How, by denying my claims with invalid sources? He has yet to proven my statements are false by presenting accurate evidence. He is using scores as a way of fact, when they are in fact opinion and by doing so he left out a whole section of games which he deems "obscure"...so please elaborate on this for me, because I fail to understand your logic.

Maybe you should pay more attention, I have presented an unbiased list from a 3rd party source PROVING the 360 has less eclusive titles in fact...it is on THIS page.

Look at the top of page 8! its right there.

Ok Show me this 3rd party source you speak of.Unforgiven2870

it's the one that includes loads of shovelware as being equal to universally accepted AAA games.

Perfect Dark Zero
PGR3
PGR4
Kameo
Dead or Alive 4
Ghost Recon
Halo 3
Dead Rising
Forza Motorsport 2
Ninja Gaiden 2
Lost Odyssey
Saints Row
Ace Combat 6
ChromeHounds

I win.
Lost exclusives:
Gears of War
Viva Pinata
Mass Effect
Lost planet

No way I'm going to buy multiple platforms just to get the games that 1 can provide :D Thats why I'll most likely get a Wii.

[QUOTE="sparkypants"][QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

we have to have some standards here.

CaseyWegner

So ignoring the rest of the world and focusing ONLY on GameSpots ratings(a site who's rating have been proven rigged) is a set standard? How?wouldnt an unbiased list of titles from mulitple sources be a more accurate method? What about sales, thats not a accurate standard as well?

i already said that not much changes even if you use gamerankings instead. and how have gamespot's reviews been proven rigged? :?

but its all opinion based...how many times do I have to say this? You cant disprove fact with opinion, whether they come from:IGN,GS,UGO,1UP, GameRankings or whoever...they are all someones opinion, not actual fact. The existence of the game is fact whether or not its good is for you and only you to decide.

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"][QUOTE="sparkypants"][QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

we have to have some standards here.

sparkypants

So ignoring the rest of the world and focusing ONLY on GameSpots ratings(a site who's rating have been proven rigged) is a set standard? How?wouldnt an unbiased list of titles from mulitple sources be a more accurate method? What about sales, thats not a accurate standard as well?

i already said that not much changes even if you use gamerankings instead. and how have gamespot's reviews been proven rigged? :?

but its all opinion based...how many times do I have to say this? You cant disprove fact with opinion, whether they come from:IGN,GS,UGO,1UP, GameRankings or whoever...they are all someones opinion, not actual fact. The existence of the game is fact whether or not its good is for you and only you to decide.

we have to have some standards here.

we have to have some standards here.

CaseyWegner

And a list of games isnt good enough?sales figures arent good enough? I see nothing wrong with this, you are trying to present opinions as facts, and by doing this you are making yourself look silly. Now stop repeating yourself...

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

we have to have some standards here.

sparkypants

And a list of games isnt good enough?sales figures arent good enough? I see nothing wrong with this, you are trying to present opinions as facts, and by doing this you are making yourself look silly. Now stop repeating yourself...

your list counts shovelware the same as universally accepted, highly rated games. sales don't reflect quality. the best option is to use reviews.

im very mixed up on this.

on the one hand competition is great. it drives innovation and lowers costs. on paper at least. now although innovation is going at a steady pace, prices are only going up. in alot of ways it feels like a cartel. any more consoles under the current business model for consoles would be a disaster for the consumer. crazy but there ya go.

should one go though? im not so sure. the one thing MS have done well this gen is to keep sony on their toes. if MS wasnt here then the PS3 would probably still be $600. yes theres ninty but ninty are doing their own thing (and major kudos to em..the wii is great) and are keeping everyone on their toes in a different way.

on the other hand though...the 360 is getting the crap undermined out of it by MSs policies (as is the PC of course...neither side is benefiting from thsi crossover). as a 360 owner....mine is getting basically no use. were into june and ive bought alot of PC games, quite a few wii games (with 2 more later this month that i want), 1 PS3 game (with 2-3 more this year that im interested in) and 0 360 games (and nothing coming that wont be on the PC at some point) so far this year. since i bought my 360 (around 6 months after launch) ive only bought about 4 games for it. if i didnt have my PC then my 360 would be far more used. this is something that MS seriously need to address...ideally with completly seperate PC and 360 divisions in the company that effectively compete with each other.

does that make the 360 irrelevant though? absolutely not and 20+ million seem to agree. it has kicked online play on consoles into gear (before MS, online play on consoles was a laughing stock compared to the PC...at least now its respectable) and it has also done the same with downloadable content and content distribution over dinternet on consoles (yes there ideas MS took from there experience on PC but PCs are not consoles). it also has a titanic attachment ratio and games sell very well on the platform...so clearly MS are doing somethign right on that front.

im ranting a bit though...i think a 3rd competitor is good to have in this industry with its current business models. the PC, godly platform that it is, has no voice and tis not a console and ninty have thrown a major curve ball (which is great) but i think its still important for one company to keep another in check by meeting them blow for blow.

i wish it wasnt MS though in alot of ways, i wish it was another company like toshiba, samsung or panasonic....i wish MS were completly focused on PC gaming and someone else stud up to the plate to create a console just like the 360 and the 720 in the future. but alas MS are very entrenched in the console market and, chances are anyway, there the only company thats bullheaded, stubborn and powerful enough to keep sony on their toes (and vice versa of course...MS are no angels either).

[QUOTE="Unforgiven2870"]Ok Show me this 3rd party source you speak of.CaseyWegner

it's the one that includes loads of shovelware as being equal to universally accepted AAA games.

Seriously like at least half of those titles had TBA next to them. Therefore there are too many variables in that list to make it valid for such a discussion

Yes there is. I like three. Sure it is expensive but still. I like my PS3 in way for hardware, movies and MSG4 than the 360 and Wii. I love my Wii for parties. I love my 360 for Online. I like 3 consolesSuliman-Uchia

Now thats the way to go!

I don't have a PS3, but with the 360 and Wii, they both have their good points and bad points.

Xbox 360, if you don't care about blowing tons of money on 3-4 consoles, but love graphics and online play, this is for you.

Wii, if you have a small budget and don't care what the graphics look like and enjoy having friends over, voila, you've found your system.

It really depends on how you play. If you like FPS, than 360, if you like Six-Axis stuff, than PS3, if you enjoy a new type of gaming with motion sensor, than Wii.

im very mixed up on this.

on the one hand competition is great. it drives innovation and lowers costs. on paper at least. now although innovation is going at a steady pace, prices are only going up. in alot of ways it feels like a cartel. any more consoles under the current business model for consoles would be a disaster for the consumer. crazy but there ya go.

should one go though? im not so sure. the one thing MS have done well this gen is to keep sony on their toes. if MS wasnt here then the PS3 would probably still be $600. yes theres ninty but ninty are doing their own thing (and major kudos to em..the wii is great) and are keeping everyone on their toes in a different way.

on the other hand though...the 360 is getting the crap undermined out of it by MSs policies (as is the PC of course...neither side is benefiting from thsi crossover). as a 360 owner....mine is getting basically no use. were into june and ive bought alot of PC games, quite a few wii games (with 2 more later this month that i want), 1 PS3 game (with 2-3 more this year that im interested in) and 0 360 games (and nothing coming that wont be on the PC at some point) so far this year. since i bought my 360 (around 6 months after launch) ive only bought about 4 games for it. if i didnt have my PC then my 360 would be far more used. this is something that MS seriously need to address...ideally with completly seperate PC and 360 divisions in the company that effectively compete with each other.

does that make the 360 irrelevant though? absolutely not and 20+ million seem to agree. it has kicked online play on consoles into gear (before MS, online play on consoles was a laughing stock compared to the PC...at least now its respectable) and it has also done the same with downloadable content and content distribution over dinternet on consoles (yes there ideas MS took from there experience on PC but PCs are not consoles). it also has a titanic attachment ratio and games sell very well on the platform...so clearly MS are doing somethign right on that front.

im ranting a bit though...i think a 3rd competitor is good to have in this industry with its current business models. the PC, godly platform that it is, has no voice and tis not a console and ninty have thrown a major curve ball (which is great) but i think its still important for one company to keep another in check by meeting them blow for blow.

i wish it wasnt MS though in alot of ways, i wish it was another company like toshiba, samsung or panasonic....i wish MS were completly focused on PC gaming and someone else stud up to the plate to create a console just like the 360 and the 720 in the future. but alas MS are very entrenched in the console market and, chances are anyway, there the only company thats bullheaded, stubborn and powerful enough to keep sony on their toes (and vice versa of course...MS are no angels either).

osan0

All right, while I am still not found of 3 systems the idea of having another console that helps balance out the other 2 and allows the PC to compete instead of making it an outlet is a nice Idea. I can say tthis too, if that were to happen next gen then I would have no choice but to get it(Who knows by then I will be out of collage and working for a company that pays more then Minim wage :lol: )

[QUOTE="sparkypants"][QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

we have to have some standards here.

CaseyWegner

And a list of games isnt good enough?sales figures arent good enough? I see nothing wrong with this, you are trying to present opinions as facts, and by doing this you are making yourself look silly. Now stop repeating yourself...

your list counts shovelware the same as universally accepted, highly rated games. sales don't reflect quality. the best option is to use reviews.

...but sales are hard fact, while scores are a matter of opinion therefore using them is an unacceptable way of proving a point!

If we just go by opinion then there's really no part in arguing. One person will argue that the 360 has better exclusives, the other will argue that the PS3 does. It would be endless. There needs to be some kind of order, and the best way is reviews and we use GS reviews hereSnowboarder99

But by doing so you are just contridicting your own statement, because GS's opinion is still an opinion.

Lol wut?

Doesn't the 360 not only have more users than the PS3 but also more exclusives, thereby justifying its existence?

metroidfood

[QUOTE="Snowboarder99"]If we just go by opinion then there's really no part in arguing. One person will argue that the 360 has better exclusives, the other will argue that the PS3 does. It would be endless. There needs to be some kind of order, and the best way is reviews and we use GS reviews heresparkypants

But by doing so you are just contridicting your own statement, because GS's opinion is still an opinion.

It's a professional opinion

[QUOTE="sparkypants"]

[QUOTE="Snowboarder99"]If we just go by opinion then there's really no part in arguing. One person will argue that the 360 has better exclusives, the other will argue that the PS3 does. It would be endless. There needs to be some kind of order, and the best way is reviews and we use GS reviews hereSnowboarder99

But by doing so you are just contridicting your own statement, because GS's opinion is still an opinion.

It's a professional opinion

Agian its still an opinion...using facts would be more professional then a professional opinion(lol what a mouthful)

[QUOTE="Snowboarder99"][QUOTE="sparkypants"]

[QUOTE="Snowboarder99"]If we just go by opinion then there's really no part in arguing. One person will argue that the 360 has better exclusives, the other will argue that the PS3 does. It would be endless. There needs to be some kind of order, and the best way is reviews and we use GS reviews heresparkypants

But by doing so you are just contridicting your own statement, because GS's opinion is still an opinion.

It's a professional opinion

Agian its still an opinion...using facts would be more professional then a professional opinion(lol what a mouthful)

Not in this case. Anyone here can tell you sales =/= quality

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"][QUOTE="sparkypants"][QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

we have to have some standards here.

sparkypants

And a list of games isnt good enough?sales figures arent good enough? I see nothing wrong with this, you are trying to present opinions as facts, and by doing this you are making yourself look silly. Now stop repeating yourself...

your list counts shovelware the same as universally accepted, highly rated games. sales don't reflect quality. the best option is to use reviews.

...but sales are hard fact, while scores are a matter of opinion therefore using them is an unacceptable way of proving a point!

sales =/= quality in any way, shape, or form. there are too many variables.

sales =/= quality in any way, shape, or form. there are too many variables.

CaseyWegner

but see again...that is your personal OPINION on the matter. What you said is not fact, for example, CoD4 sold exponentially well and received a AAA score on this site which by your logic makes it a quality title and if thats the case then what you just said isnt true, but rather your personal opinion on the matter. what would be fact however, is that CoD4 managed to sell alot of copies. This statement can be proved and isnt based on opinion, understand?

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

sales =/= quality in any way, shape, or form. there are too many variables.

sparkypants

but see again...that is your personal OPINION on the matter. What you said is not fact, for example, CoD4 sold exponentially well and received a AAA score on this site which by your logic makes it a quality title and if thats the case then what you just said isnt true, but rather your personal opinion on the matter. what would be fact however, is that CoD4 managed to sell alot of copies. This statement can be proved and isnt based on opinion, understand?

and i said there are too many variables. what if the game was not advertised? it would have sold less all the while being the exact same game as far as quailty goes.

[QUOTE="sparkypants"][QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

sales =/= quality in any way, shape, or form. there are too many variables.

CaseyWegner

but see again...that is your personal OPINION on the matter. What you said is not fact, for example, CoD4 sold exponentially well and received a AAA score on this site which by your logic makes it a quality title and if thats the case then what you just said isnt true, but rather your personal opinion on the matter. what would be fact however, is that CoD4 managed to sell alot of copies. This statement can be proved and isnt based on opinion, understand?

and i said there are too many variables. what if the game was not advertised? it would have sold less all the while being the exact same game as far as quailty goes.

Well then thats the companies fault,and the fact the game is there is fact as well...so in a case like this when we are talking about exclusives that game CAN be used as an argument because it is a fact that the game is exclusive and it is a fact that well its a game. and to disprove you on your earlier comment, the sales of an individual game would never be put into play unless you were comparing two games(because Im talking systems, and its clear they exist)

I would also like to add CoD4 had very little advertisment, and it still managed to sell well now didnt it

Well then thats the companies fault,and the fact the game is there is fact as well...so in a case like this when we are talking about exclusives that game CAN be used as an argument because it is a fact that the game is exclusive and it is a fact that well its a game. and to disprove you on your earlier comment, the sales of an individual game would never be put into play unless you were comparing two games(because Im talking systems, and its clear they exist)

I would also like to add CoD4 had very little advertisment, and it still managed to sell well now didnt it

sparkypants

Did you just change your argument again?

[QUOTE="sparkypants"]

Well then thats the companies fault,and the fact the game is there is fact as well...so in a case like this when we are talking about exclusives that game CAN be used as an argument because it is a fact that the game is exclusive and it is a fact that well its a game. and to disprove you on your earlier comment, the sales of an individual game would never be put into play unless you were comparing two games(because Im talking systems, and its clear they exist)

I would also like to add CoD4 had very little advertisment, and it still managed to sell well now didnt it

Snowboarder99

Did you just change your argument again?

No you guys did, Im just proving a point. You brought up the agument and Im now countering it. perhaps the two of you should stay on topic.

there's no reason to have PS3 or 360, one high powered console would be enough. All my gaming is done on the 360 and my movie watching is done with the HD DVD player. Having owned HD movies for a whiel now I can honestly say there's no point in it, so DVD is what I watch on my upscaling player.

PS3 has about 2-3 titles I'd like to check out, but until Soul Calibur 4 hits, there's no reason to buy it. Bluray's cool, but like I said, it's not that big of a deal. Then they went and took backwards compatibility from the PS3 which for me was a huge selling point.....oh well. I like the free online and think HOME is useless, the conrollers okay etc etc etc.

The PS3 and 360 both have many of the same titles, online gaming, DLC, wireless controllers, and a few exclusive titles. The exclusive titles on both consoles are piss poor aside form a few gems like gears, MGS4, or Fable. Too Human? Lair? Please. And people list ALL exclusives like they're actually worth a second look when explaining why thier system is the best. It's pure BS because both of them have 3-5 at the most and thats not worth a full pricetag.

If you put both of them together, its a compelling purchase but seperately, you can basically have just one and be perfectly fine whichever one you choose.

The wii is on everyone's list at fiurst til they get it, play the few games that are decent, then its collecting dust. The ood thing is that there are still plenty people that still want the thing so you can break even.

CoD4 was advertised.

Whats the whole argument in this thread now?

No you guys did, Im just proving a point. You brought up the agument and Im now countering it. perhaps the two of you should stay on topic.

sparkypants

I'm not sure exactly what this topic is you are talking about. Your OP said, "While this isnt the systems falt but the companies, all exclusive games that debut on the 360 either end up on another system(more so PS3 then Wii) or the PC(typically window based systems...sorry MAC users). Now with that being said, is there really a need for it in the gaming world?"

After disproving that, we are talking about something differententirely

CoD4 was advertised.

Whats the whole argument in this thread now?

SpruceCaboose

first it was quality and then it shifted to mere existance. :?

Well then thats the companies fault,and the fact the game is there is fact as well...so in a case like this when we are talking about exclusives that game CAN be used as an argument because it is a fact that the game is exclusive and it is a fact that well its a game. and to disprove you on your earlier comment, the sales of an individual game would never be put into play unless you were comparing two games(because Im talking systems, and its clear they exist)

I would also like to add CoD4 had very little advertisment, and it still managed to sell well now didnt it

sparkypants

if you admit that sales could be the companies fault, why on earth should we use sales as a factor?

[QUOTE="SpruceCaboose"]

CoD4 was advertised.

Whats the whole argument in this thread now?

CaseyWegner

first it was quality and then it shifted to mere existance. :?

I love all my systems. I am quite glad that all of them exist, actually.

CoD4 was advertised.

Whats the whole argument in this thread now?

SpruceCaboose

Im trying to say there is no need for 3 consoles 2 would be fine, I suggest that the 360 should be pulled because it has the least exclusives and alot of its selling titles are on the PC. Now before you jump ship I have pulled a 3rd party source that compare the 3 systems exclusive titles its on pg9 I believe. While my argument may have been alittle drastic, someone with alittle common sense convinced me that 3 consoles are nessisary to help balance sales but made the claim that it shouldnt be MS but another company in itself(he suggested MS stick to PC and help make it a competitor instead of an outlet)...that was the idea, but thanks to casey I had to speand 3 pgs explaining the diffrence between FACT and OPINION.

also CoD4 had little advertisment, In fact the only reason I knew about it was from here...

If you put both of them together, its a compelling purchase but seperately, you can basically have just one and be perfectly fine whichever one you choose.

mtron32

.....:shock:

Dearly beloved, we are gathered here today to join logic and contradiction in holy matrimony. If there is anyone here who objects to these two binding in an ever lasting love, let it be known now.

[QUOTE="SpruceCaboose"]

CoD4 was advertised.

Whats the whole argument in this thread now?

sparkypants

Im trying to say there is no need for 3 consoles 2 would be fine, I suggest that the 360 should be pulled because it has the least exclusives and alot of its selling titles are on the PC. Now before you jump ship I have pulled a 3rd party source that compare the 3 systems exclusive titles its on pg9 I believe. While my argument may have been alittle drastic, someone with alittle common sense convinced me that 3 consoles are nessisary to help balance sales but made the claim that it shouldnt be MS but another company in itself(he suggested MS stick to PC and help make it a competitor instead of an outlet)...that was the idea, but thanks to casey I had to speand 3 pgs explaining the diffrence between FACT and OPINION.

also CoD4 had little advertisment, In fact the only reason I knew about it was from here...

also CoD4 had little advertisment, In fact the only reason I knew about it was from here...

sparkypants

Whether or not COD4 was advertised a good amount is besides the point. The point is how much this game is advertised will affect its sales, and not the game itself. Therefore, sales are not a good indicator of the quality of a game.

QED