[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="El_Zo1212o"] Nope. It's an american branch of a Japanese company. And I'm sure his data is one google search away, too. Before you start asking for references, why don't you provide them to the folks who asked you for them first? Lay the gauntlet on the table for real instead? Make them put their money where their mouths are.El_Zo1212oHis data couldn't be a google search away because then they will contradict each other. I haven't seen anywhere that 360 exclusive accumulated sales overcome PS3's I have seen the opposite. I also have seen that a PS3 exclusive has a bigger MC score than any 360 exclusive and that the PS3 has more high scoring exclusives (AAAE, AAE and you can include or exclude AE if you like the result is the same) than the 360. If he has links against any of that I would retract my statement but the burden of proof should lie on that who started too make the fantastic claims. And Sony America hires many americans so if you support it you're supporting americans. 1. Yeah... the internet has NEVER contradicted itself. 2. Burden of proof needs to be satisfied by ANYONE making ANY CLAIM and calling it truth. You have consistently refused to do so, so how can you demand it of others? 3. At the end of the day, I prefer to side with the company founded in my home country. Is that unreasonable? After all, 85% or so of the retail software is the same from one system to the next.Companies like MS and Sony aren't "American" or "Japanese" anymore. They are multinational conglomerates. The old "Buy American to support Americans" mentality is outdated. If the company is outsourcing it's jobs to China, you are "buying American to support Chinese." Nothing wrong with that, as long as you're aware that when you're talking about "supporting companies founded in your home country," you aren't actually supporting American workers or the American economy any more than you would be by supporting Sony or any other large multinational corporation.
ianuilliam's forum posts
[QUOTE="i5750at4Ghz"][QUOTE="ianuilliam"]Lol. America, F*** Yeah!Damn Straight!!! High five, you guys. You guys just picked out exactly why I bought a 360- I buy american: american tools, american cars and american videogame consoles.Psssst... Your 360 was made in China.El_Zo1212o
Pretty ridiculous to try and criticise this for being a flop now. For one, the hype thread was full of joking around - no one taking it seriously. and it's clear we are not the intended demographic. It is however another quality exclusive to add to the 360's list! Nice.RavensmashNow I agree it's a quality exclusive, and wish it was on PS3... but that's kinda hypocritical.... If we shouldn't make fun of it for flopping because it's a kids game and not for us, then why should it count on teh 360 list? It's a kids game, and not for us...
[QUOTE="-ArchAngeL-777-"][QUOTE="i5750at4Ghz"]Looking at recent sales, it doesn't need a damn thing.i5750at4GhzThat's in large part due to Gears of War 3. Before it released they had been getting beaten by PS3 for months. This will flip when Uncharted 3 releases. 360 is crushing the PS3 in America, the only region that matters.Lol. America, F*** Yeah!
Thats the thing with opinions you can always find others that are the opposite I've sen ppl use their ps3 more than 360. Just as I've sen ppl use ds more than psp and psp more than ds.[QUOTE="p4s2p0"]
[QUOTE="mrsniper83"] Are you kidding me, if xbox had a blu ray player nobody would own a ps3.I have both systems and i use my xbox %99 of the time.brennanhuff
While rgp aren't my thing I have heard portables have the most
He has a point. The software sales speak for themselves. Look at the trend of PS3 exclusives and sequels. While hardware sales are going up, software sales are actually going down.
I think the most obvious explanation is that people use the PS3 primarly for Blu-ray. I know I fall in that category.
PS3 worldwide software sales 2008: 103.7 million2009: 115.6 million
2010: 147.9 million
2011: --
So, PS3 sales are going down?
inb4 "Sony waited till after MS released numbers so they could make up bigger numbers." 8)
And also, hasn't MS said pretty much every month how they were the only ones showing year over year growth? Why is their quarter down from last year? :shock:
Good numbers though. Just have to wait and see how everyone else did.
[QUOTE="balfe1990"]
[QUOTE="Austindro"]
lol at cows hyping it AAAAE for the flop, that is sad.
Snakemaster9
It was totally capable of achieving AAAAE status. GS is obviously biased.
Still Sesame Street>Infamous 2 :P
lolol
Both groups do that though so...
Kinect games>Crazy Sony Exclusive
Exactly. But for some reason when a PS3 game flops, it's because "lol, cows always overhype every ps3 exclusive!" Then when a 360 game flops, its because "lol, cows overhyped it for the flop!" On the other hand, if a PS3 game meets hype, its "lol, cows underhyping to avoid flops!" and when a 360 game meets hype its "great score, met hype!"Hype polls have always been sketchy. If lems think flops are from poll-rigging, they should stop making hype threads with polls, and start tallying hype votes manually, like all the other recent hype threads.
That said, 8 is a great score... Personally, I think it should have been a bit higher. Everything I've seen and read, including the GS review, looks like solid AAA to me, relative to the genre/target audience. 9+ games are supposed to be the absolute best of their genres, and this looks like the absolute best game for preschoolers ever made. The only real complaints I've seen anywhere are that it can be repetitive... Have these reviewers ever watched shows for preschoolers, and how preschoolers react/interact with things before? Kids will watch the same movie, or even same 30 minute episode back-to-back 100 times. That's how they learn... For it to be good, it NEEDS to be simplistic and repetitive.
In other news, flop-watch 2011: PS3, KZ3 hyped AAA, 8.5 FLOP! Infamous 2 hyped AA, 7.5 FLOP! 360, Forza 4 hyped AAA, 8.5 FLOP! Once Upon a Monster hyped AAAA, 8.0 MEGAFLOP!
And in Metagame-watch 2011: PS3 1AAAE, 5 AAE, 4 AE. 360 1 AAAE, 4 AAE. 360 is only 1 AAE behind PS3, although still trailing considerably in total A+! How's that for "no games?"
The hype thread was made by a Lem... or at least someone who is strongly on the 360 side of the 360 vs PS3 divide... and it was a lot more than cows that were voting AAAAE for the lulz. How does that make it a cow troll thread? Also, I'm pretty sure I'm considered a cow by most people, so saying "every cow out there" is completely wrong. I've defended this game in pretty much every thread its been brought up in since it was announced. IF I had a 360/Kinect, it would have been a day one purchase for me, and is the 360 exclusive I would choose if I could have one exclusive from the other system.The hype was AAAAE in a troll thread. Every cow out there was bagging on this game as if it was marketed towards your average gamer. It just goes to show you that even children's products can be compelling, and I hope MS keeps producing stuff like this for younger generations.
Cows can suck it.
NeonNinja
See, that's actually wrong. Maybe that's what you meant when you said it, but it's not what it means. You see, in the first sentence, you are saying "a pc from 2006 can play any game better than consoles." What that sentence means is that a pc (at least one pc, maybe more, but not necesarily all of them) can play any game better than consoles. This is a reasonable statement, and true, as there are pcs (granted, they cost $1200 at the very least, possible quite a bit more) made in 2006 that can in fact play any game (well, any game that is on pcs at least) at better graphics settings and/or higher performance than current consoles.[QUOTE="ianuilliam"]
[QUOTE="MK-Professor"]
this statement
"A pc from 2006 can play any game better than consoles"
and this statement
"even if you have a pc from 2006, you already know it can play any game better than consoles."
have basically the same meaning, that a pc (not every pc) will play any game better than consoles
also i never said "anyone who has a pc from 2006"
Anyway, it is quite obvious that you are trying to cover the truth with all this arguments about statements, grammar etc, because you don't like that an ancient pc can play games better than consoles.
MK-Professor
The second sentence "even if you have a pc from 2006, you already know it can play any game better than pcs" doesn't actually mean the same thing. It's possible English isn't your native language, I don't know you, so I try not to judge. Instead, I'll continiue to try to explain the difference. The first part "even if you have a pc from 2006," is called a conditional, or an "if-clause." IF the condition in the clause is true, then whatever is in the main sentence body following the clause is also true (note: the sentence I just used to explain conditionals is an example of a sentence starting with a conditional). Alternatively, the main sentence can come before the conditional with the same meaning.
So the conditional in your sentence, "even if you have a pc from 2006" sets the condition to be owning a pc from 2006. As long as someone owns a pc from 2006, the condition is met. Now in the other sentence above, the lack of specificity is what allows the sentence to be true. As long as there is one pc that fulfills the criteria, "a pc plays ..." is true. In this case though, that same lack of specificity is what makes the whole sentence false, because as long as the person owns "a pc," the conditional is met. If the condition is met, then "you already know it plays any game better than consoles" should be true. But since a $300 off the rack single core with integrated graphics fulfills the conditional, yet doesn't result in "knowing that it plays any game better than consoles (or at all)," the entire sentence is false.
See? That wasn't too complicated. Grammar is pretty easy, really. Now as to the rest of your post, how is it "quite obvious that I want to cover the truth because I don't like that a (6 year old) pc can play games better than consoles" when I have repeatedly agreed with that? The problem I had with your initial statement was that it very clearly DOES mean that ANY pc from 2006 beats consoles at any new game, when in reality only pcs from 2006 that cost at least 2-3 times more than consoles might qualify. In every post since that first, you've claimed that what you said was (or at least has the same meaning as) a sentence that has a different meaning. Just because your original statement contains the other statement, doesn't mean they have the same meaning. Cheers! 8)
well, my first statement it doesn't refer to "ANY PC" but in "a PC". "a PC" can be interpret as only one or many but not all of them.
also with that logic i can say:"even if you have a pc from 2011, you already know it can play any game better than consoles."
and you answer: "no because there are pc's that don't even have GPU"
Yeah. Since "a pc from 2006" isn't specified, when you make a statement (or use it in a conditional) as long as there is at least one that qualifies the statement or conditional is true. So the statement "a pc from 06 is better than consoles" is true because there is a pc that makes it true. And the conditional "if you have a pc from 06" is met by any pc from 06... which in turn makes the statement "if you have a pc from 06, you know it is better than consoles" false. And yes, that also makes the statement "if you have a pc from 2011, you know it is better than consoles" false. I can buy a pc right now that is not better than consoles, thus I can have a pc from 2011, and not know it is better than consoles.Yeah... I'm gonna have to say the only educational games I can remember from when I was a kid (like under 10) were Oregon Trail and maybe Where in the World is Carmen SanDiego? You guys talking about playing kids games from the 90's make me feel old...
Log in to comment