Tyrant156's forum posts

Avatar image for Tyrant156
Tyrant156

737

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 Tyrant156
Member since 2004 • 737 Posts

So people will have to buy an old PS3 AND an add on? sounds expensive

Avatar image for Tyrant156
Tyrant156

737

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 Tyrant156
Member since 2004 • 737 Posts
[QUOTE="KarateeeChop"]

[QUOTE="LOXO7"]Lol. I know it bothers people so much when people add and not subtract. I'm surprised I didn't get a notice(yet) from GS saying that I was trolling.:haha

LOXO7

well, as far as i know, the definition for "trolling" doesn't extend to grasping for straws. ;)

But really, you don't make any sense at all. If selling 50 million units of anything is a failure people should look to SW for advice more often.

lol you're only successful after the 53.6 million mark
Avatar image for Tyrant156
Tyrant156

737

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 Tyrant156
Member since 2004 • 737 Posts

[QUOTE="Tyrant156"]

[QUOTE="garland51"]

"Last resort to make PS3 sales look bad?" What? Dude, you just need to give it up. No one made the PS3 or it's sales look bad but Sony themselves. The fact of the matter is, is that Sony has not done all that great for this gen at all. Besides, you're the ones talking about "Duhhh, PS3 has been outselling 360 year after year, etc," when it was only due to the huge success off of PS2, as well as Sony doing tons of price cuts, etc., ever since after their launch. Point blank.

garland51

Well didn't the 360 have price cuts as well? I don't see how either system is doing poorly when they've both sold roughly the same amount of systems.

Not as much as Sony did with the PS3. MS didn't even have their first price cut for the 360 until 2 years after their launch. Sony, however, went from $600 down to $300 in nearly 3 years time, from November '06, to September of '09.

But that's a good thing right? Sony saw a problem and fixed it and MS started to counter those price drops after the systems became equal in price.
Avatar image for Tyrant156
Tyrant156

737

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 Tyrant156
Member since 2004 • 737 Posts

[QUOTE="LOXO7"]

[QUOTE="SUD123456"]You are not the first to try to use the "Sony family" defense and I am sure you won't be the last. However, the "family" defense is considered teh lulz in SW.

You complained that the other poster was using data for an 11 yr old console vs a 4 1/2 yr old console as incorrect evidence of success (or failure)

I provided you comparative data over similar time frames which demonstrates equally well the point the other poster was making.

Now you are resorting to the "Sony family" defense. You can make an argument for that in the real world if you want. But this isn't the real world, this is SW.

KarateeeChop

Wait a minute. Lems can use previous gen's to fit their ownage while Cows can't? As in 53.6 - 24 = positive. 50 - 120 = negative. And the "family" technique which is only a + sign. xbox + 360 < PS2 + PS3. How lame :roll:

the real world considers this gen an utter disaster for sony, especially when taking into account that they sank from reigning supreme to eating the 360's dust.

but i guess it can be comforting for some people to bring up "teh sony family" to make this gen for sony seem less embarrassing.

lol come on....eating 360s dust ? when both systems are selling at the same rate...
Avatar image for Tyrant156
Tyrant156

737

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 Tyrant156
Member since 2004 • 737 Posts

[QUOTE="_Cadbury_"]

[QUOTE="SUD123456"]

Nothing you said has any relevance since we are not talking about Sony's share of gaming. If you wish to include the PS2 as part of the current market you can. Logically you could add all PS2 sales that have occurred since the PS3 launched to Sony's total. Logically you could also add all handhelds since handhelds and consoles are substitutes for at least some people. Logically you could also add all gaming PCs as well, since they are also substitutes. You could do the same for Nintendo. We could then talk about corporate wars. But of course, this is SWs.

I am sure we could go on. But none of that would really be relevant to this particular discussion as it is about how well the PS3 is doing vs X360 and how well PS3 is doing comparatively vs PS2. Feel free to add PS2 to the market and we can redo the math. It will only make the PS3 numbers look worse. And since this is about PS3 numbers, not Sony numbers...well there is only one way this can go.

garland51



So basically what you're saying is you aren't using logic in this argument? o.o

Actually, lems have been using Sony's market share as an argument for a long time in this thread now. I've shown how that argument doesn't work.

If you're arguing about how well the ps3 is doing compared to the ps2 and 360 vs xbox, then you'd have to accept that Sony and the PS3 are doing just fine because the competition within the industry is entirely different, as well as the market.

I don't know why last gen even comes into the argument, this is the 360 sales numbers vs ps3 sales numbers. The only reason last gen consoles came into the argument is because it was the last resort for lems to try and make the ps3 sales look bad. They try to make the 360's sales increase over the xbox look good when the fact of the matter is that the xbox sold incredibly poorly, obviously it's going to be easier for MS to do better than that than it will be for Sony to get the PS3 to sell as well as the PS2, which sold unbelievably well. And theres still a possibilty that the PS3 will sell in similar amounts to the PS2 when Sony is reporting record sales for last year.

"Last resort to make PS3 sales look bad?" What? Dude, you just need to give it up. No one made the PS3 or it's sales look bad but Sony themselves. The fact of the matter is, is that Sony has not done all that great for this gen at all. Besides, you're the ones talking about "Duhhh, PS3 has been outselling 360 year after year, etc," when it was only due to the huge success off of PS2, as well as Sony doing tons of price cuts, etc., ever since after their launch. Point blank.

Well didn't the 360 have price cuts as well? I don't see how either system is doing poorly when they've both sold roughly the same amount of systems.

Avatar image for Tyrant156
Tyrant156

737

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 Tyrant156
Member since 2004 • 737 Posts

Doesn't look too much different then GoW2

Avatar image for Tyrant156
Tyrant156

737

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 Tyrant156
Member since 2004 • 737 Posts

[QUOTE="heretrix"]

Last gen

PS2 - over one hundred million sold and still going.

Xbox-25 mi

----------------------------------------------------------

This gen

PS3-50 mil

Xbox 360- 53 million

X360 wins. Not really all that hard to figure out.All of the exclusive nonsense and other reasonings are irrelevant. Microsoft has more than doubled their console sales this gen while Sony has lost half of theirs.

milannoir

Exactly. This gen was catastrophic for Sony... Not only did they lose a huge part of their market share, but they were also in the red for 3 years or so...

MS started in the red and continued into the first 2 years of the 360, if you're going to go by profit then you have to go by gaming divisions not consoles cause MS's gaming division still hasn't recovered from the first 6 years of its inception. I think it's a dead tie, the 360 stumbled with the RROD and Sony priced their system waaay too high, hell the sales numbers reflect this.
Avatar image for Tyrant156
Tyrant156

737

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 Tyrant156
Member since 2004 • 737 Posts

People shouldn't get down on Sony for not selling 100 million consoles like they did with the PS2. The reason PS2 did so well is because the competition at the time was terrible, Sega couldn't recover from past mistakes, Nintendo were trying to be somthing they were'nt and MS had just entered into the market. Even if the PS3 does surpass the sales of the 360 I still wouldn't consider that beating the 360, the numbers are just too close and the time frames are off.

Avatar image for Tyrant156
Tyrant156

737

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 Tyrant156
Member since 2004 • 737 Posts

I'd be happy with a faster blu ray drive and having all my controllers compatible with the new system.