Personally the fact that they had the balls to say that Sony purposely making their console hard to develop for and punishing them by not making games for them was one of the classiest things they did, and thus have earned my respect.

march 2011 confirmed

lets hope it pulls a Heavy rain and onyl gets a high AA score on metacritic

it might even surpass SNES and NES one day. thats something

ps3>>>360 fact. not even debatable

planbfreak4eva

thats like saying gamecube was better then ps2.......

last place consoles arent the best :P

[QUOTE="ZuneHD"]

[QUOTE="bobbleheadrogue"] a) 360 came out a whole year before the playstation did so of course it would have sold more b) the only feature that PSN doesn't have is cross game chat. Oh, and Live costs $50 a year I am a sheep....but still....your theory sounded a bit absurd to me :P bobbleheadrogue

a. frankyl its downright embarassing ps3 couldnt close the gap with a company they so easily beat last gen.....and cant overtake it with japans help.

b. theres more but im still right.

theory? its all true.

trueskill matchmaking, live party come to mind off the top of my head.

but then theres the little things......like 360s coming packaged with headsets where as ps3s dont, how 360 has 100% custom soundtrack support and ps3 has it for a few games, how we always get DLC first before the ps3, how we seem to get exclusive demos or timed exclusive demos, how we got netflix and the video store first, how EVERY PSN firmware update gave ps3 features Live has had since day 1.

PS3 gamers seem to think online = MP only. Live is about EVERYTHING that requires a internet connection.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]I will say that XBL is superior to PSN for sure.. But beyond that? Its subjective.CajunShooter

not quite.......because even if you dont use all the extra features........you still know in the back of your head that Live has more features. whether or not u use them is irrelevant. The point is you KNOW they are there where PSN doesnt have them.

quite simply........a fanboy claims victory in a few ways.

total sales = my corporation is better then yours (or more successful)

total A, AA, AAA (metacritic) = my console has better games in the eyes of the industry then yours

online features = I have more options when going online then you do.

youd THINK that hardware features and quality means anything................then we see the Wii being the #1 seller...............or how Xbox lost to PS2 despite having superior hardware and being more reliable.

you do realize that the delays are due to finetuning the game and that remedy is only 50 people?

[QUOTE="ZuneHD"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"] Actually the reason there's a debate is because some people have trouble with the meaning of the words fact, opinion and better. You're among them I can see.kuraimen

360 factually has more sales, metacritic, a compilation of the ENTIRE reviewing industry, says 360 has more quality games.........and anyone who thinks PSN has equal features to LIVE is clearly not thinking straight.

it is also a fact that hardware quality means NOTHING in determining the winner. Xbox was a tank compared to the ps2.......and look what good that did MS in the end lol.

and you also seem to think that only exclusives matter.......when MS and 360 gamers keep saying that 360 multiplats NOT on PS3 are just as good (like Splinter cell, L4D, or Mass Effect).