dRuGGeRnaUt's forum posts
[QUOTE="Miketheman83"]p.s i thought that the "PS3 had no games" forum myth , created by lems, had already been killed and cremeated. You know, last time I checked, Uncharted, Heavenly Sword, WarHawk, Ratchet and Clank ect - all released within ONE year of the PS3's launch. That's the reality of it, you should come join every one else in it. And in all actuality, The PS3 received more exclusives within the first year of its release, then the 360 did within the first year of its release. And the PS3 from late 2006( when it launched) to late 2007, still had much more games back then the 360 has games NOW- -more games back then the 360 had games for the year of 2011 or even for the year of 2010 too. LMAO so sorry but you fail yet again. Its ok, theres always a next time troll. Oh and even at 600$ the PS3 was still a far more bang for your buck value then the 360 was. The 360 may have appeared cheaper, but it came with a lot of hidden fees that in total raised its price higher then that of the PS3.. Like the price of xbl, the blatant money grab that was the M$ wi-fi adaptor, having to buy battery packs ect. When it was all said and done, the 360 cost more to get it running to its fullest potential then the PS3 did. The PS3 came out of the box ready to go- to its fullest potential. And the fact that the 360 came out with ancient old tech, that makes it all the more worse. While the PS3 came out with cutting edge tech like blue ray, the cell, and had wi-fi installed into the console..... And still it cost less in total to play the PS3 the way it was fully itended to, Then it cost to play the 360 the way that M$ lead you to believe you would be able to - when you first bought it at its intial smoke screen price, But instead hidden from consumers were the fees that it took to start playing the 360 the way that M$ fully intended it to be played. Its literally insane how M$ was able to deceive consumers about the 360's price , and into thinking it was cheaper, when in fact you had to buy a 100$ wi-fi adapter, and 50$ worth of xbl just to play the console online. Then there were the battery packs ect. The PS3 came without any of those fees attached, all the while having more cutting edge tech inside it. If you were an educated and or informed consumer that had done your research, you'd know that the PS3 had more bang for your buck value then the 360. Not to mention, it(the PS3) had its share of great exclusives released within a year after its launch. And for every year since then, after that first year, from late 2007 - up untill now in 2012, the PS3 has been crushing the 360 in quality of exclusives and in quanity of exclusives. So try harder next time xbot lol The PS3 has very arguably been one of the greatest consoles of all time(awesone graphics, a great and diverse amount of many stellar exclusives, blue ray, free online, great controller, lots more consumer friendly options then its competitor) There is just so much cow-ery in your posts its to much to address it all. "HAVING" to buy battery packs for controllers... as opposed to HAVING to buy a new PS3 controller when the battery loses its charging ability?? As opposed to buying a NEW FANCY PS3 CONTROLLER with FANCY BUILT IN BATTERY, only to find out they dont include the ACTUAL cable to charge the controller? You know how much those cables cost me where i live? about $10, the price of the battery packs for xbox. LOL =-=-= cows always say "just use the cable that came with you ps3"... you mean the 2 foot cable they so graciously included?? what if i have more than one controller?? =-=-= ancient old tech? WTF is that? haha.. mandatory wifi add on?? who the f**k games using wifi? seriously, you aren't seriously this ignorant.. but hey it is SW. that f*** though. get off sony's d*** and realize these are just companies. I love hearing the "MY $600 DOLLAR CONSOLE IS ACTUALLY CHEAPER THAN YOUR $399 CONSOLE!!" argument. lol seriously. "TRY HARDER NEXT COWFACE" =-=-= And ps3's are sooo amazing, that almost NONE of the video game players i know own one?? myself and 2 friends are the only ones i know that bought a ps3. compared to the 15+ xbots.Microsoft never screwed me over. Ive had more fun with the 360 than I have any other console Ive owned (and Ive been gaming since the NES.) Microsoft gives me great gaming experiences and I give them money, I think its a fair trade. I support Microsoft because they did a great job this gen, I used to be a PS fanboy.
I have no idea why anyone would support Sony. They came out with a $600 console and said gamers had to work more hours to afford one. Forced Blu-Ray down peoples throats and put gaming on the back burner for the first couple years of the PS3's release. The only reason the PS3 sold is because of the PS1 and PS2. The PS3 should have been boycotted.
dudegamer23
I was a PS2 fan. I was looking forward to buying a PS3. I did not want to spend $600 on a game console just because it had a Blu-Ray drive (which proved to have NO advantaged this gen, if anything it hindered games with mandatory installs.) The fact that the most expensive game console had the worst game library is pathetic to me. Sonys main agenda at the beginning of this gen was winning the format war for their own future profits, not gaming. That is a disgrace to game consoles in my opinion. If the PS3 was released with a different brand name no one would have bought it, it sold because people have been playing Sony consoles for over 10 years. While on the other hand, the 360 sold well because of what it offered, not based on Microsofts previous success in the industry.[QUOTE="Miketheman83"][QUOTE="arkephonic"]
What a contradiction you just made.
You say that you never felt that Microsoft screwed you over because you traded money for great gaming experiences.
Sony offers the best gaming experiences with all of their multiplats and exclusives, so you trade them money for the best gaming experiences.
Sounds like a fair trade to me.
The PS3 at launch was expensive, not overpriced, big difference. The hardware was worth $800, they were selling it for $600. Sony is still selling the PS3 at a loss, to offer the best console technology at an unbeatable price. Nintendo and Microsoft would know nothing about this, because they sell their consoles at a profit, not at a loss. Just look at the Wii, it's an overclocked Gamecube. Just look at the 360, it uses a DVD drive, last generation controller technology, disc trays, in-house parts to save money, overall shoddy built quality, etc. etc.
PS3 = best build quality and best hardware out of any console at an unbeatable price, paired with free online, the best exclusives and all of the multiplats. I have no idea why anyone would support Sony....
arkephonic
I had a PS3 at launch, and I never had a lack of games to play. I was playing Resistance: Fall of Man, Warhawk, Ninja Gaiden Sigma, Motorstorm, Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, Oblivion, Uncharted, Ratchet and Clank and a ton of multiplats in the first year alone.
Just 1 year later, I was playing the only AAAAE of this generation, Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots, along with LittleBigPlanet, the definitive version of Bioshock, Valkyria Chronicles, Resistance 2, and this is just after the first year that PS3 was on the market mind you.
I bought a brand new HDTV, my first one, the same day I bought a PS3, and what better way to take advantage of it than the best blu ray player on the market, a PS3? The PS3 for the first 2 years was the best blu ray player on the market, with the highest quality blu ray drive. It was putting $900 dollar blu ray players to shame, and it doubled as a video game console as well. As a tech enthusiast and a gamer, I would have been crazy to not take advantage of the PS3 hardware, considering Sony was selling it at a loss when the hardware inside was worth much more.
Plus, bluray has been advantageous for a large number of PS3 exclusives, and this far into the generation, just look at how many Xbox 360 games are on 3 discs. I much prefer having my games on 1 disc, it lends itself to a much more streamlined and complete experience. I have an Xbox 360 and a few multi-disc games, and it really is a pain and breaks immersion.
Installs really don't bug me, I install games on both PS3 and 360. I always install on 360 because the disc drive is so loud without an install. Installs don't bug me because it takes place before the game starts, so I don't care. When I'm in the middle of playing a game, immersed, I don't want to stop and change a disc.
Again, like I said, expensive, not overpriced. If you couldn't afford it, that doesn't mean it's overpriced. It was worth more than Sony was selling it for.
You had my interest/attention right up until that "definitive version of bioshock". lol.[QUOTE="Miketheman83"]Case in point ^ I rest my case. Here ladies and gentleman, we see the delusional loyalist xbot drone at work. I hate how people now a days will defend a mega-corp...a mega shady corp... like M$ at every turn, and for everything ... Its like people have become soulless M$ shills. Human society couldn't have been this dumbed down and degraded. Im confident a majority of it has to come from paid M$ posters If paying $60 a year saves me from using ps3's archaic online system/interface, it is worth the cost of admission. I live in crappy internet world, and just looking at a friends profile on psn takes anywhere from 20seconds-40seconds depending on "trophy synch" or whatever. On xbox? I click "view profile" and it loads almost instantly, same with the achiements lists, etc. The messaging system on ps3 is annoying as well. However these are all my OPINIONS. Many like ps3, and its find. for the most part in game experience is the same. The fact cows constantly say you pay for "party chat" proves they haven't used an xbox much or at all. I love my ps3 games, but for interface, i cannot find any rational for the sony systems used. =-=-=-= ALL of my online gaming(aside from ma PC) is done on my xbox. Cows can complain and moan all they want, fact is, more people seem to not mind paying for gold. The online systems/invite systems/player base EVERYTHING works better on xbox. I have never had any downtime, I have never had multiple 24hr "maintainence" periods. All my games UPDATES are like 2-14mb, compared to the 1gb+ updates my ps3 games often require(like heavyrain). Not to mention the whole download, THEN install thing. I find it funny how big of a deal cows make about small flaws with xbox, then somehow, no one mentions the "need to download install file first, then install, then update, then delete old install file" thing. Xboxes experience this gen has been smooth(interface wise NOT hardware wise lol ;)), and all the updating is lightning fast. -==-=-=- Heck, the entire new OS for xbox downloaded and installed faster than updating LBP did on my ps3. and dont even get me started on "home" :D =-=-=-=- Xbox has flaws, like the other 2 consoles, paying $60 for an online system as robust as theirs, i dont find one of them. Lack of good exclusives? YES that bothers me. Their focus on kinect? YES. The failure rate/shoddy hardware(in the beginning) YES.Microsoft never screwed me over. Ive had more fun with the 360 than I have any other console Ive owned (and Ive been gaming since the NES.) Microsoft gives me great gaming experiences and I give them money, I think its a fair trade. I support Microsoft because they did a great job this gen, I used to be a PS fanboy.
I have no idea why anyone would support Sony. They came out with a $600 console and said gamers had to work more hours to afford one. Forced Blu-Ray down peoples throats and put gaming on the back burner for the first couple years of the PS3's release. The only reason the PS3 sold is because of the PS1 and PS2. The PS3 should have been boycotted.
dudegamer23
Log in to comment