[QUOTE="Blanco98"] DUDe, even tho saying this thread fails makes me look dumb its true, dude atleast EXPLAIN why sony has failed you. Please dont say price becuase you can be 14 years old work and publix and get around 200 dollars per mopnth or more so dont use that as an excuse. Also why would you want a console to fail?? Becuase it doesent appeal you? It appeals millions of people in the world dont expect it to just appeal you man, not everytnes like you , stop thinking like a comme. Also It Sony consoles fail that would hurt the gaming industry too, mostly US the gamers. So grow up man their doing fine, just becuase some Bum cant afford one doesent meqan its bad..
septicvirus
I will spell it out for you and others. Sony made us wait for their product and built up a false hype saying that it was going to be leaps an bounds better than the competitor. When it finally realeased, it wasn't. It was more expensive and all multi-plat games play worse. It has been out over a year - practically all of its exclusives have flopped, it doesn't have any exclusive system selling games (AAA), all of it's multiplats are inferior or delayed,
1. Sony held back the PS3 from launching at the same time as the 360 so they could incorporate Blu-ray. Ultimately, they tried to convince everyone that it was necissary for video games. However, soon, we all realized that their alterior motive was to win the home movie format war. Then we all realized that the blu-ray drive speed is so slow, all the extra gigs are spent putting redundant data on the disc. Not to mention load times are longer in the "real next gen" machine?
2. The Cell. It was supposed to be amazing - yet it is currently the sole reason why all multiplat games look worse. I know you say, time, time, time, but really - it is becoming increasingly evident that Sony had alterior motives for its inclusion in the PS3 and that it is not a good processor for videogames.
3. RSX. If it was going to delay launch, why didn't it take the time to upgrade the GPU? It is so pathetic that the graphics are not noticeably better when it is more expensive AND came out later.
4. The games. If Sony is going to wait an extra year to launch its console - it needs to make sure that the games are THERE when it launches - that way the wait was justified. Why should sony get a pass for the next couple years saying "oh they came out later so of course there aren't as many good games"
AS A RESPONSIBLE CONSUMER THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE
1. Blu-ray might have low load speed but its mass amount of space makes up for that, regardless of what space is used on the load speeds it still holds ALOT more memory than DVD and HD-DVD alone and remaisn to have the same load speeds also thats why we have memory caches.
2. The cell, though at first it was true, they are starting to get around that, Games liek Dirt, Obivion, GRAW 2, and so on prove that the PS3 version is superior (dont say becuase they had more time becuase they start each console project separeately) also Devs are staring to understand the cell more everytday if you need more understanbding read this dude. http://www.blachford.info/computer/Cell/Cell1_v2.html
3. The RSX can actually cope with the cell making the GPU better and the ram.
4. MAybe for you it wasent enough and dont say "oh the 360 has better games and were better recieved" Maybe you never thought about it but that was the first time a console was released with suposebly next gen graphics (current gen) so games looks superb while when PS3 was launched the games dident seem so diffrent then what they saw an year b4.
Also dident you ever think about it, Why did Microsoft release a console KNOWING that it had a defect rate, let alone having a 33% defect rate. So please dude be quiet, at the end of the day its all about opinion, but yours makes no sense.
Log in to comment