[QUOTE="BillHarrison7"]

Hmmm. Lets see. When you get home tonight, log on to steam, and see if your friends are online playing rockband. Then check for a new movie you have been wanting to see - go ahead and rent it, in hd, and while it starts grab some popcorn. All on your couch. On your bigscreen, with 5.1. Then when your buddy shows up, and an invite pops up while your in the movie, pause the movie, and jump right into his game with him, exactly where hes playing. Help him finish the level, then jump back into your movie, right where you left off. All from your couch.

I mean, the XBOX is a one stop entertainment and gaming station. When I turn on my tv, I turn on my XBOX. I watch divx movies, live tv through Media Center, and now can enjoy my Netflix subscription. Can you do all that through steam, PSN, or any other network?

All this costs money. I mean, look at the new Dashboard? Awesome, and a first ever in consoles, to totally reinvent the gaming system, its far better, and just came out, so no doubt has plenty of room to grow. Where do you think they found money to pay devs to do all this? HELLO? XBOX live subscriptions. All you thick headed idiots can comprehend is "Dedicated Servers" blah blah blah. I play online with no lag, all the time. Sure, lots of others provide THAT for free, but do they provide anything else? Sure the silver guys get all that, but its only because the GOLD members are subsidizing it, and hoping once the silver members get a taste, they will go gold for the extra benefits.

You are not JUST paying to play online, your paying devs to do REGULAR system updates, even in this latest case a complete system overhaul! Do you honestly believe if LIVE was free, it would have advanced 1/10th of as far as it has? Its a pretty simplistic view to say "No dedicated servers, NOT WORTH PAYING" You are paying for the whole, and as a whole the system is coming along VERY nicely, far better than any other console.

Oh, and its 50 bucks a year. If you can't afford that.... well.... How do you even afford games / consoles to start with?

blues35301

Whats even funnier is you can do all that stuff for free but if you want to play games online it somehow costs money to do so and by doing so you're only using your friends or your connection. MS doesn't provide any servers in any way. I think ign did a whole article about how much of a scam live was lol.

Ah, to converse with immature children, I almost wonder why I bother. Let me break it down for you: MS is a business, and so far has shown us ALOT more when it comes to online than the other 2 console guys. Do you think this is because A: They FEEL LIKE IT or B: They are getting PAID to do so. Do you think they would be as likely to put as much resources into it if it was a LOSS and not a PROFIT generator? Are you really that naieve? Your willing to bet 100% of the money from live is straight profit? Well I would take that bet, as NOTHING in any business is 100% profit. Grow up.

And you cannot do all that stuff for free on one box while sitting on the couch with a remote in your hand. Trust me, I am on every Home Theater website from AVSFORUMS to "THEGREENBUTTON" and no box offers as much as the XBOX, bar none.

And again, had you bothered to read AND COMPREHEND my post, you would realize that silver members are not getting anything for FREE, just enjoying benefits GOLD members make possible through paid subscriptions. Kinda like PBS, you do realize its NOT free, and they point that out during commercials, but that it is paid for by a small number of people so that many can enjoy its benefits. But your probably a bit too dense to comprehend that. If a few were not paying, NOONE would be able to enjoy it.

Hmmm.  Lets see.  When you get home tonight, log on to steam, and see if your friends are online playing rockband.  Then check for a new movie you have been wanting to see - go ahead and rent it, in hd, and while it starts grab some popcorn.  All on your couch.  On your bigscreen, with 5.1.  Then when your buddy shows up, and an invite pops up while your in the movie, pause the movie, and jump right into his game with him, exactly where hes playing.  Help him finish the level, then jump back into your movie, right where you left off.  All from your couch.

I mean, the XBOX is a one stop entertainment and gaming station.  When I turn on my tv, I turn on my XBOX.  I watch divx movies, live tv through Media Center, and now can enjoy my Netflix subscription.  Can you do all that through steam, PSN, or any other network?

All this costs money.  I mean, look at the new Dashboard?  Awesome, and a first ever in consoles, to totally reinvent the gaming system, its far better, and just came out, so no doubt has plenty of room to grow.  Where do you think they found money to pay devs to do all this?  HELLO?  XBOX live subscriptions.  All you thick headed idiots can comprehend is "Dedicated Servers" blah blah blah.  I play online with no lag, all the time.  Sure, lots of others provide THAT for free, but do they provide anything else?  Sure the silver guys get all that, but its only because the GOLD members are subsidizing it, and hoping once the silver members get a taste, they will go gold for the extra benefits.  

You are not JUST paying to play online, your paying devs to do REGULAR system updates, even in this latest case a complete system overhaul!  Do you honestly believe if LIVE was free, it would have advanced 1/10th of as far as it has?  Its a pretty simplistic view to say "No dedicated servers, NOT WORTH PAYING"  You are paying for the whole, and as a whole the system is coming along VERY nicely, far better than any other console.

Oh, and its 50 bucks a year.  If you can't afford that.... well....  How do you even afford games / consoles to start with?   

I would say it looks great, basically on par with Gears of war, I like a few things better about Drake, a few things better about Gears, but I would say in the long run they are roughly equals.

However, thats a big negative for the PS3, as its roughly putting out the same quality graphics as the 360 in the same time frame. Being equal to the 360 would not be a big problem, if it weren't for the Higher price, later launch, and endless "WE ARE BETTER YADA YADA" BS spewed by sony and its supporters.

So yes, being equal, is still a loss for the PS3 in my book, because all I heard since E3 05 was "Xbox 1.5" bs. They promised more, so I expect more, and I am simply not seeing it.

[QUOTE="The_Crucible"][QUOTE="BillHarrison7"]

1. You mention "I wish you just used the facts". Well, here you are guessing! You claim "A title that could easily be developed within penty of time left in the 360 gen." Yet you have no facts or information to back this claim up. You have no idea. Perhaps the 360 was not powerful enough? Perhaps there was just no way to get it done in time? You DO NOT know, yet you throw that out like a fact, moments after belittling someone for the same!

xscrapzx

Stop right there. You're right, I don't know for sure. All i do know is that the game was already being developed for 360. Whether its been a week or a month, it has already been worked on, the clock was already ticking. Add that time to what SHOULD be left on the 360. There is PLENTY of time to develope a killer app. Especially when we are talking about using the 360 technology that has already been cracked by devs. Its not like there's some major configuration to do to sqeeze juice from the console.

So, that's leaves the "why" unanswered. More than likely, the answer is the one you gave, in bold above. If that's anywhere near the reason, MS has failed.

So in your eyes if MS has failed so has Sony. Sony hasn't even come close to accomplishing anything that the 360 has. Simply because there is an article about future developement means nothing to the future for the 360 IMHO. Also by looking at how games have come out and have been developed for the PS3 they are pretty much at par with the 360 as far as performance goes. So if by chance MS wanted to make a game for the 360, but found that maybe it should be developed for a later console because of its demands. What does that say about the PS3? Which has yet to really surpass anything graphically that the 360 has come out with?

Just because a game requires more power than what the 360 currently offers does not mean "It Failed". Of course there will (I hope) be games that require more power than the 360, the ps3, even the most powerful current pc can provide in the future! Its called progress! If that were not the case, then games would get NO better, nor would we ever need to update our hardware. Its a GOOD thing to require more power! The 360 is the first "HD" console, never mind that blither blather about being a few pixels short on some games, its the first console that really takes advantage of hd, the PS3 is the second. But, its a big leap, and its obvious neither of them are capable of as Sony puts it "True HD" across the board, both consoles have many titles in 720p (Which honestly is not a problem and looks great) its just clear there IS a need for more power in the future. I am not such a fanboy as to think that the 360 is the "End all" be all console, anymore than any of the previous consoles from anyone were. So to think that they are designing a game that goes beyond what current consoles offer is not "Failure" for anything, it is infact a GREAT thing and something to look forward too!

So many faults in your statements. I only wish you just used the facts and kept it a lot shorter.

1. As I have said time and time again, no one is faulting any console maker for working ahead. It is normal. We are talking about ONE software title. A title that could easily be developed within penty of time left in the 360 gen.

2. It WAS normal for consoles to last 5 years. BOTH MS and Sony have stated that their current consoles should last beyond that. Especially when costs seem to climb well above inflation every gen (yes MS too). It is a fact, that if the 360 only lasts 5 years it is a failure. PS2 has shown what great console support should be.

3. Yeah, no hardware issues or failures this gen. Right. While this round it isn't due to a bad deal with Nvidia, it is due to poor hardware decisions. First you have the RRoD. And until they have some extensive testing on the new chip, no one is sure there's a fix. By the time they do, under your own time table, this gen will be 80% over. Second, no standard HDD's. Either everyone gets screwed with limitations on files sizes or a section gets screwed if the HDD is utilized for games. Third, no high capacity disc media to overcome the lack of HDD. Yeah, they could jump onto the sinking HD-DVD ship. But that can't be used for games without screwing a bundle of gamers. So, they look ahead. Real hard.

4. Already in the black? Are you serious. I suggest you take some finance lessons with some of the other lemmings I had to take to school a few months back. They hide a projected billion, BILLION, in warranty costs in the last fiscal year. That doesn't just disappear. Take the money made and lost from the 360 launch and I think you'll see, they are far from profitable.

The_Crucible

Wow, you obviously don't like the 360 or microsoft. But, just on general principal, I am going to take a stab at this, not because you will learn anything, or bother to try, but because some of those you are attempting to persuade may become a little more enlightened.

1. You mention "I wish you just used the facts". Well, here you are guessing! You claim "A title that could easily be developed within penty of time left in the 360 gen." Yet you have no facts or information to back this claim up. You have no idea. Perhaps the 360 was not powerful enough? Perhaps there was just no way to get it done in time? You DO NOT know, yet you throw that out like a fact, moments after belittling someone for the same!

2. It was, and in my opinion still is normal to get roughly 5 years out of a console. Processor and GPU power will increase EXPONENTIALLY over that 5 year span, as will storage capacity, memory speeds and capacity, etc. Sure, they could keep aconsole around for 10 or more years, but I personally want something with better graphics and capabilities every so often. I don't want to wait much over 6-7 years for that, or it will really be dated. And yes, when a new console comes out, I move on. Honestly this point is in alot of ways personal preference. I prefer to buy at launch, and keep until the next launch, moving on for the most part at that time. If you are still playing your PS1 today, I have nothing against you, but I am sure glad we are not ALL stuck playing it, because I want more!

3. Miscellaneous fanboy ramblings here, I guess its not future proof enough for you is the point? Well, hence why we will get a new console in another 2-3 years, and it will be the best of everything! And I will have gotten 4-5 years of playtime out of my 400 dollar xbox 360, less than 100 bucks a year. To me, well worth it.

4. Yes, as pointed out above, they are in the black. Black means making money. Not losing it. Does not mean making PROFIT. Thats called being in the "Green". Being in the black simply means taking in more than putting out for a given period of time. Once they have taken in more then they have EVER given out, then they are "In the Green"

Its pretty clear nothing anyone says here will change your opinion of the XBOX brand, and your grasping at straws here as it is. If it were to come out after the "PS4" whatever, you would complain about that. If it comes out before, then you will complain about that. If it launches the same day, then they are just copying sony. In your eyes, they can't win, hence why they don't worry about your eyes! I for one don't want a console to last 10 years, I want a new one well before that. I have no problem with them supporting the old one past 5 or so years, but I don't really mind either way if they do or not, as long as they include backwards compatibility, its not a concern of mine, I can pick up any late interesting last gen games, and those without the money can still buy a few games. A new console every 2 years? Yes, thats too soon. A new console every 8 years? Thats really too long. 5-6? Just right!

[QUOTE="ps3weee"]

[QUOTE="jessie5788"]if Ms is owning this gen why is the wii ahead of it why has the ps3 sold more this year with a 600 price tag and no games. Orresnei

I am not talking about who is selling the most , I am talking about what system is the best , the best gaming console is the one with the best games , 360 has the best games ...

Well. Which system is the best if we are to judge based on games and such, is higly subjetive. You can't possibly state that Xbox 360 is the best console based on subjektive views about games, funcionlity and so forth. The games you consider to be good, dosn't have to be liked by others.

If we are to announce a console winner, we'll have to do it on som objetive cold hard facts. Like console salenumbers and profit, or the lack of profit for that matter. With the objective criterias Wii is the best console of this generation for now. It have sold most, sold faster than the competition, and Nintendo have profited the most on the console. Yakes...

Hmmm the 360 hasn't really out sold the direct competator and that is the PS2 (it has barely stayed with the PS2 in monthly sales). The 360 isn't even in the same generation of the next generation console the PS3 is, because the hardware is about the same as the PS2 and far behind thePS3 in the technology ladder. When M$ releases the 360 with the HD DVD then it will be getting closer to the PS3 as far as technology goes.jimm895

Wow. Just.... Wow. I mean, do you eat through a tube? How do you use a PC? I mean..... Well, just wow. Thats all.