? For Sony and Sony Fans. Was Blu-ray worth it?

[ThaMaskedGamer]

Sony's calculated move to embed Blu-ray into the PS3 may have seemed like a good strategy. Use one device to conquer two territories! But now they are experiencing effects which they NEVER could have calculated. It seems now that momentum in the opposite direction Sony planned has gained so much energy that it may be impossible for Sony to ever make the PS3 even remotely as profitable as PS1 and PS2. And puts them immeasureably behind the 8-ball in the next next generation.

The loss of time-based exclusivity for GTA was big, and it will be even bigger once the game actually arrives! But to keep that in perspective, GTA in the past did make its way to XBOX, as well as other Rockstar games. But now aside from the early announcement of Resident Evil, as has been posted here, more and more core PS franchises are dropping on 360 to the point that I don't know that the Playstation brand means anything anymore. I mean core, iconoclastic, system defining franchises! Armored Core, VF5, and now DEVIL MAY CRY? Dante?! This is more than just bragging rights this is a major threat to the projected longevity and lifecycle of the PS3. If you think about the Playstation systems in the past, 1 & 2, what made it so successful was sequel after sequel, continuous cash cows for both Sony and publishers! Surely Sony did not expect to be dividing these revenues with MICROSOFT when they planned PS3. This was NOT something they ever thought would happen to this degree this fast.

I'm sure they thought they had engendered a certain amount of loyalty from developers and publishers that made a lot of money from the Playstation systems. I'm sure they felt that these guys would stand by them during their false starts and hiccups that have plagued the PS3 project from day 1. But it looks like just as in any other business, there is no room for loyalty! It looks like these publishers and developers don't give a hoot about the past! And how can they? Its like professional athletes and teams, so what you gave me 2 good years, your knee is shot, take a walk! Or I'm holding out, despite the fact I signed that contract last year, I had 15 tds this season! Here it doesn't seem to matter that Rockstar, Capcom, and others made combined possibly billions of dollars solely from the PS systems! That was last year, last quarter, last month, last week, that money has been chopped up and paid out to creditors, employees, and shareholders, thats yesterday! All they care about is who is gonna sell the next 2 million copies of DMC?

You can't blame the publishers or developers, there is no course on the subject of loyalty taught at Harvard Business School. But, there is definitely someone or some group of people(within Sony) who must and should be held accountable for basically ruining this Playstation GOLDMINE, possibly the whole company in the end if this thing doesn't get turned around! Let's put things in perspective here. You had a company that basically held an entire industry by the THROAT. Sony dominated gaming almost much as Apple is dominating the digital music industry, except GAMING IS BIGGER THAN DIGITAL MUSIC! Let's put it in perspective, if Sony dominated any of its other divisions as much as they dominated GAMING the gov't would have to break up the company! If Sony movies was as big as Sony gaming, if Sony consumer electronics was as big as Sony Gaming!?

But at the upper levels of this company someone decided to intermingle these divisions putting a MONEY PRINTING DIVISION, with tons of loyal customers(ready to make PS3 a success) at RISK all to promote the Blu-ray format. Of course Sony ONLY saw the upside. But what that means is Sony basically took the gamers that catapulted them to #1 and said <b>"we don't give a damn about you and we are going to use you because we believe you are suckers!"</b> They took gamers for granted! They felt gamers would buy at whatever price regardless of the quality of games, we will penetrate the market with blu-ray, and kill off toshiba and MS in one stroke in the end.

Sony definitely felt that they would take MS out a la Dreamcast because 360 would be lacking HD playback, they still feel that! They believe in the end Bluray is going to be the piece that differentiates PS3 from 360. They just don't understand its about the games! We all know they feel that if PS3 reaches the numbers 1 and 2 did, toshiba is DEAD and won't be able to reach economies of scale, HD-DVD will die as well as 360.

If you think about it, Sony's strategy really did seem as if it had no downside! It really seemed like that is what would happen! For a minute, they had me believing that is what would happen. I definitely thought that if PS3 is pumping out games exceeding 360 games and services equaling LIVE for free and dropping in a sure winner in Bluray, hell that is a SURE THING IF EVER I SAW ONE. Then they teased us with all kinds of tech demoes that looked awesome!

So this is non-bias non-fanboyism. Even the most die-hard Sony fans have got to see that this, at the very least, is not going in Sony's intended direction. So I ask gamers here:

What was wrong with Sony's strategy? Was it the overall strategy or was it tactical mistakes in operation and execution? Or if you really feel that this is just part of the big picture Sony had in mine, maybe one step back two steps forward in the future, then say so?

Also can Sony win one front, Bluray, but lose the other, Gaming!? Which actually might end up happening. If so, was it worth it or will it be worth it? Look at the market for bluray and the market for gaming(which equaled Hollywood boxoffice revenues) which would you rather dominate?

What about the publishers and developers? Is this a permanent thing. In other words, Ubisoft made SC4 multiplatform, but are pulling SC5 back to exclusivity on the 360. Is there a chance that some of these games that fell into MS' lap, will get pulled back in the future if PS3 can reach mass scale, say at least 20 million? Or will these games be more successful on the 360 leading to sequels and possibly other games jumping ship like dare I say Metal Gear?

Finally, is this a good thing for MS and the 360? Perhaps the reason why there is doubt on Konami's part about bringing MGS4 to 360 is that MetalGear2 failed on XBOX. So I doubt that all of these games, esp. games like VF5 and Armored Core will succeed on 360, if they fail, that might be a bad thing overall for 360 in the future. Also will these PS franchises erode support for 360 exclusives? After all, there is only so much money we gamers have!

<b>My quick take, I know this has been long but here is my nonbias view. Basically I think Sony effed up by mixing two different products in different industries. If you look at companies who do this, Apple for instance with IPODs and their Mac computers, they didn't mix the two and make them interdependent. IPOD would have failed if it was tied to Macs timetables and only compatiable with Macs. Look at MS, if XBOX was tied to Windows, it would have died in the first year. In a lot of regards, XBOX is so NOT-LIKE-Windows! Apple would be stupid to for example in its foray into cell phones, hold up the release of the next IPOD, until they could integrate it into its Iphone! Or tie the IPOD software updates to their Mac Tiger O/S. You don't eff with a cash cow! If something is successful you leave it alone, if you try and trojan horse something new up the consumers butts, unless it is perfect, they will feel pissed off and used. Sony effed with the Playstation division and the results are far from perfect. Even if Apple stumbled with the IPOD, they could get away with it, there are essentially no competitors. We all know MS has stumbled with Windows, still no real competitors, they got a way with it, I would argue they are losing some market to LINUX and Apple. But Sony had no reason to fugg with the Playstation, and they definitely did not show any respect for their competition, Nintendo and MS, who have promptly capitalized and are snackin' on dat azz! Bluray might win, but so what, the physical medium is just not as important as it was 5 years ago, so it will be an unfulfilling victory, definitely not worth the cost imo. Plus, arguably, the biggest factor in Bluray's success is probably the ace it had all along, studio support! </b>

[ilnadmy]

Yes it was.

[ThaMaskedGamer]

Yes it was.

So if Sony could go back in time, plan the PS3 without an integrated Bluray drive, not be held and met its production numbers, got development kits out faster to publishers, launched earlier with more units and games, at the normal $300 price point, or maybe $50 more due to inclusion of a HDD, you think they would be worse off?

Well, u must luv u some blu-ray boy!

[Dancer O_o]

Let me see if I can come up with more than 3 words for you so as to actually contribute something. Apparently Blu_ray on the PS3 has some skipping issues, I never noticed it but if true that hurts PS3 a bit. From my perspective Blu-Ray is damned good so far and if it fails as a valid media for movies it is still a great media for games as games are getting pretty big in MBs these days, in a few years the PS3 will seem superior as games will all be on one disk versus 360 having deal with 2 to 4 disks to match it. So, PS3 is as Sony stated, a system for the long haul with a decade of potential. I'm not sure that Blu-ray is going to beat out HD-DVD but it's leaning that way so far.

Sony letting exclusivity go is probably the biggest mistake they've made all told, I mean really...why buy PS3 when everything of worth is coming to the 360 anyway, and maybe even faster since it has proven easy to work with compared to PS3. Titles are coming very quickly now for the 360 and sequels for some 360 launch titles are already out for Godsakes...no way that PS3 is going be able to have games coded up that fast and look so good. This is where the 360 smokes the PS3, ease of development, anyone that says different is in lala land.

All the clueless analysts out there still predict PS3 the overall winner...I think most analysts are overpaid jackasses that are rarely correct...and I work in a building full of them so I know what I'm talking about here.

Oh, one more HUGE mistake that all are aware of my feelings on, the Goddamned Sixaxis piece of poodoo. Example: March 23rd I will get Armored Core for 360 TO AVOID having to play it with the lame sixaxis...no moneys for Sony. This is the first time the Armored Core series will have Sony loosing money, what a freaking shame on Sony. (rumble is SO last gen...my ass)

[DrunkenThumbmaster]

Sony didn't realize why they one in the first place. In the Playstation 1 era Price killed off the Saturn more than anything. The Saturn had great games. Little know fact Tomb Raider a series that seems tied with the PS brand debuted on the Saturn!

The PS2 version it was two things 1 they were first to market before there major compeitors. The DC never had EA support and in NA and Europe you can't succeed without EA. Especially back then.

With that lead they became the lead sku for most multiplat devs generating more games more fans more sells. Sony grieviously underestimated that. Some people say MS wasted the 360's first year. But they did what they needed to do. Now you will see the results of that lead in the coming months and years. Where the audience is big enough for devs to expand and then more games more fans it's a cycle.

Sony simply priced themselves out the market. Here's a bit of marketing knowledge for people (I'm in sales) you never want to market on value when you are more expensive than your compeititors. Because regardless of whatever the value is taking that approach says one thing you are more expensive. Apple with there grossly overpriced product never tells you how much value you are getting for all that money. Look they are releasing a $600 phone and forcing you to get a two year contract. But they aren't saying you get this for your money. They show the product then casually slip in the price at the end.

Sony with all there price comparsions are hurting themeselves. The PS3 has blue it's a computer it's this it's that. If you look at all you get it's a value! But what if I just want to play DMC4 where is the value? That's the where they put themselves in.

So what can they do Price drop? Well if they aren't going to price it at $400 a $200 price drop don't bother. Because they will still be the most expensive. And can they afford that. Now they are in danger of losing mindshare and if that happens you can't win. Period.

Saying all that next month I'm probably going to pick up a PS3 primairly because I want a Blu Ray player and eventually I'm know I'm going to get it. Plus I think HD-DVD may be dead in the water.

[ThaMaskedGamer]

Let me see if I can come up with more than 3 words for you so as to actually contribute something. Apparently Blu_ray on the PS3 has some skipping issues, I never noticed it but if true that hurts PS3 a bit. From my perspective Blu-Ray is damned good so far and if it fails as a valid media for movies it is still a great media for games as games are getting pretty big in MBs these days, in a few years the PS3 will seem superior as games will all be on one disk versus 360 having deal with 2 to 4 disks to match it. So, PS3 is as Sony stated, a system for the long haul with a decade of potential. I'm not sure that Blu-ray is going to beat out HD-DVD but it's leaning that way so far.

Sony letting exclusivity go is probably the biggest mistake they've made all told...



But I think the two go hand in hand. Sony is losing exclusivity because the PS3 has not built up a install base publishers want to see. I think the reason why is 2 fold, the PS3 was delayed too long and the PS3 cost too much. I think the reason why it was delayed and cost too much is because of Bluray support. Remember Sony had to work with Hollywood, computer companies, and others to finalize encrycption and HDCP and all that other stuff, then they had to get bluray manufacturing processes ironed out to where they actually make reliable readible discs, all this is what really led to the delay in getting the PS3 to market. True other things like their ONLINE network was also part of the delay and to a small degree getting chips, but really the biggest factor in the delay was Bluray. And in terms of cost, of course the extra price for PS3 is mainly due to Bluray.

I think if PS3 had of skipped bluray Sony would have probably made its original launch date and would have launched with more units. The price would have been lower, which means less people this past holiday would have bought Wii and 360. I think by now Sony would much closer to 360 and ahead of Wii if they were at $300 to $350 dollars. They would still be in the mainstream and publishers would have stayed loyal, maybe not all, but I don't think it would be this bad.

Of course, Bluray could have came out on its own. There are other electronics companies, as you know, pushing Bluray. Samsung and others have players out there. So I'm not saying Sony should have aborted bluray, just NOT tie it to their main source of revenue, the Playstation division.

[ThaMaskedGamer]

Sony didn't realize why they one in the first place. In the Playstation 1 era Price killed off the Saturn more than anything. The Saturn had great games. Little know fact Tomb Raider a series that seems tied with the PS brand debuted on the Saturn!

The PS2 version it was two things 1 they were first to market before there major compeitors. The DC never had EA support and in NA and Europe you can't succeed without EA. Especially back then.

With that lead they became the lead sku for most multiplat devs generating more games more fans more sells. Sony grieviously underestimated that. Some people say MS wasted the 360's first year. But they did what they needed to do. Now you will see the results of that lead in the coming months and years. Where the audience is big enough for devs to expand and then more games more fans it's a cycle.

Sony simply priced themselves out the market. Here's a bit of marketing knowledge for people (I'm in sales) you never want to market on value when you are more expensive than your compeititors. Because regardless of whatever the value is taking that approach says one thing you are more expensive. Apple with there grossly overpriced product never tells you how much value you are getting for all that money. Look they are releasing a $600 phone and forcing you to get a two year contract. But they aren't saying you get this for your money. They show the product then casually slip in the price at the end.

Sony with all there price comparsions are hurting themeselves. The PS3 has blue it's a computer it's this it's that. If you look at all you get it's a value! But what if I just want to play DMC4 where is the value? That's the where they put themselves in.

So what can they do Price drop? Well if they aren't going to price it at $400 a $200 price drop don't bother. Because they will still be the most expensive. And can they afford that. Now they are in danger of losing mindshare and if that happens you can't win. Period.

Saying all that next month I'm probably going to pick up a PS3 primairly because I want a Blu Ray player and eventually I'm know I'm going to get it. Plus I think HD-DVD may be dead in the water.


Everything you said is right on the money. Lemme reply in reverse order. I do not think HD-DVD is dead yet. True Blu-ray has taken the lead, but we are still talking about small numbers of discs, especially in comparison still to DVDs. Plus more HD-DVDs are on the way 100 from Universal in this upcoming year, that will NOT be on Bluray! Plus remember, the uptic in PS3 is key for the latest Bluray surge. But why is that happening, no PS3 games, when games finally become the primary use for PS3 consumers, Bluray sales will drop off, just like UMD movie sales on the PSP. Bluray might succeed, but to do so it will have to stand-up on its own in the consumer electronics world. Right now studios are taking a hit by selling Bluray discs as cheap as HD-DVD disc, they do cost more to make. Until people like Samsung are willing to chop the price of their players in half, bluray won't really take off. People are hardly buying a $600 PS3, who is gonna buy a $1000 bluray player? I bought the stand-alone HD-DVD unit, mainly because, I already had a 360, so that cost was sunk. The $200 to get into HD movies for the player was negligible and currently I can enjoy a lot of movies in HD like the Departed, Babel, MI3, upcoming Children of Men even old classics like Bullit. But I don't know if HD-DVD will win, but I was willing to bet $200 on it. I'm not willing to bet $600 on it or on Bluray, and since the PS3 is not pumping out good games, no sale here. I'm not gonna give Sony the benefit of the doubt. I actually don't know if they will make good games compared to 360.

What you said about price though is right on the money. In every market you have the mainstream product at a normal cost, you have luxury or price leaders, and you have the low cost competitor. Sony was the de facto mainstream console. they were priced just right and provided everything the average game consumer wanted, as evidenced by the fact they kept a $300 price point longer than I thought they could. Nintendo was the low-cost leader last generation, they failed because they didn't accept this role. But like it or not this is the role the consumer expected from Nintendo, now they have adopted this philosophy whole-heartedly, they are where the consumer expects them to be. Nobody is gonna pay $25 for a Happy Meal. MS was positioning themselves as a luxury item, again, and with lower costs they would have been profitable with XBOX type sales. But stupid Sony may have turned around and made 360 the mainstream console. In fact, they have done this. Sony is now a luxury item, at least with PS3! But they cannot succeed at this role for two reasons: 1. The console was built for economies of scale, in other words, they can't make money unless they get the same volume or MORE as they got from PS1 and PS2. 2. Their consumer is in shock! The consumer was NOT expecting this role, meaning price, from PS3. Look at it around here, when people say, online gaming is nice, but I don't care about, HD is nice, but I don't care about it. That mindset is even stronger for the average gamer. But even though Sony's online is free, the price is built into the games and the console. Of course bluray is built in.

Really Sony fans would have been happy with a system equal or slightly less powerful than 360 but at $300 bucks, with the same exclusive franchises that they know and love. Don't get me wrong, I don't think Sony should have went the Nintendo route. They were definitely smart to include a HDD, but the bluray drive, the online network, home, HDMI, dual 1080P, 7 bluetooth controllers. all that was just too much. They should have done the HDD, done the cell, done the GPU, did 1080i and been out the door at $300. Sure they still would have swallowed a little red ink, but nothing like the loss/unit they see now. Plus they would have about 2 million more users by now, publishers would see the kinda growth they need, Sony would be on the road to another successful cycle. Instead all of their consumers are now spinning off on tangents deciding what they should do. It seems like 1/4 are going to Nintendo, 1/4 are going to 360, and only 1/4 are staying with the PS2 and they are only getting the last 1/4 of their previous generation to jump to the PS3. And those happy the PS2 is still doing big numbers, belief me Sony is not happy about it, they would much rather see it the opposite.

[Gadfly2317]

I still kinda want one, for no truly good reason other than the goodwill I still feel because of Sony's past gaming machines, and the vague lingering hope that Sony can pull it off and actually deliver some more intense gaming experiences due to more power, larger storage capacity, HDMI, interactivity with the PsP, creative use of six-axis and the strength of its first party games.

Sony has been losing third party exclusivity, but Sony still has a better first party, and their best hope now at not totally sinking is to come up with top-tier original stuff. After all, the exclusives third party stuff they've lost are games that are on the 4th, 5th and 6th sequels.

As to the thread and blue-ray, the Blue Ray player is icing, and I'd be glad to have it, but mostly I hope to see the extra storage prove to be a gaming asset.

All that said, its still almost impossible to see the now cliched "Wii60" as the only reasonable gaming choice. The kind of cool, offbeat creative stuff that I loved about Ps2 will be more than satiated by the Wii, and the 360 is getting all the big titles we loved about the Ps2, and still has its own distinct line up as well. And both systems for the same price as the Ps3, which currently and for at least the next year is offering virtually nothing to distuingish itself or justify the price.

It's a depressing time to be a Sony fan for sure.

[ThaMaskedGamer]

I still kinda want one, for no truly good reason other than the goodwill I still feel because of Sony's past gaming machines, and the vague lingering hope that Sony can pull it off and <b>actually deliver some more intense gaming experiences due to more power, larger storage capacity, HDMI, interactivity with the PsP, creative use of six-axis</b> and the strength of its first party games.



I agree with the promise the PS3 sought to deliver, aside from the stuff about the 6-axis I never believed in that, but now it just looks like those promises cannot be delivered in a manner that is truly better and different than 360. The reason I say this is two-fold. One, the teams that made the best PS2 games are jumping ship and to leave everything up to Sony is just unrealistic. We have seen that with MS, they tried to diversify but saw that they really needed the 3rd party community. Two, we all know whats coming down the road for Sony. All of their heavy hitters that should have been out now, will be coming in QTR 4 of '07 or in 2008. So that means Heavenly Sword, MetalGear, Rachet and Clank, the Dragon Game. I mean we all know about those games. Problem is they really don't look as appealing as what we know is coming from MS, plus we really haven't seen one frame of Halo3 till recently(Crackdown, which I still have yet to see). Point is I guess you have to be willing to wait till QTR 4 2008 or 2009 to see the type of exploitation and true convergence of Bluray's capacity, PS3 power, and 1080P to deliver games that blow away 360 games. But you really think MS is gonna stand still? I hope i'm alive in '08 and '09 and if PS3 does its thing, i'll buy it. But this year and into early 08, I don't see any magic. Honestly I don't, and I was all hyped up about PS3's potential.

[Glockstar]

I still kinda want one... hope that Sony can pull it off... due to larger storage capacity...

...I hope to see the extra storage prove to be a gaming asset.

You're still confused about that, aren't you? :frown2:

[Mochan]

Winning the Blueray format is a big thing, since if it becomes the de facto standard (and we WILL need one once the HD Era comes in) Sony is standing to rake in huge royalties for it, as they will get cash for every Blueray disk and drive sold. Is it worth losing the gaming crown? Well all crowns are lost one time or another so why not risk it?

That said they did some major blunders this gen and like DTM said, were incomplete in their knowledge about all the factors that came into play for them to become #1. While they did focus on one thing, the same thing that got the PS1 winning -- new media -- the jump from DVD to Blueray isn't quite like the jump from cartridges to CD-ROMs. And in some respects, they're the inverse; Cartridge to CD-ROM *saved* you money when it came to producing the media for the cartridges; with DVD to Blueray making the game media is more expensive. While this was true with CD-ROM to DVD as well, I don't think it was quite like the current leap -- Blueray is a technology that is a little too early for its own good, I believe.

The other advantage the PS1 had which walks hand in hand with its larger game media advantage -- its awesome 3D and graphical capabilities which you could argue were beyond its competitors -- is also not felt in the current nextgen wars because MS matched Sony blow for blow in that department. When you think about it I was all wrong 2 years back, MS did have the right strategy although it didn't seem like it at the time.


Sony simply priced themselves out the market. Here's a bit of marketing knowledge for people (I'm in sales) you never want to market on value when you are more expensive than your compeititors. Because regardless of whatever the value is taking that approach says one thing you are more expensive. Apple with there grossly overpriced product never tells you how much value you are getting for all that money. Look they are releasing a $600 phone and forcing you to get a two year contract. But they aren't saying you get this for your money. They show the product then casually slip in the price at the end.

Indeed. Apple's strategy isn't to create the idea of value, it's to create the idea of prestige and class. Somehow the PS3 hasn't come across as a classy platform, and it's not like gamers really care about that image crap anyway. Gamers stay at home to play in isolation, not go out to groove with their iPods dangling around their neck.

Another thing you should avoid in marketing is to become the "middle of the roader." This usually applies to quality from being cheap, mid class to high class expensive, and you avoid the middle class (as it is harder to target a market in this manner and the returns are not as massive) but the principle also applies to trying to have a device do too many things (jack of all trades master of none). It's always harder to market a device like this because most people will not want all the functions available, and prefer one device that is cheaper and better at a particular job -- and this ties in with the Value idea DTM brought up. After all, nobody buys PS2s to use them as DVD players, they buy real DVD players. PCs are not mass market and lose to consoles in the mainstream avenue because of this truth, and there is a reason why Nokia phones and iPods dominate the market over convergence devices like PocketPCs. Middle of the Road syndrome is bad if you are trying to become the de facto standard, and while there will be niche consumers who will appreciate your efforts, the tendency for the majority is to shun you for the cheaper, more efficient deal.


I think if PS3 had of skipped bluray Sony would have probably made its original launch date and would have launched with more units. The price would have been lower, which means less people this past holiday would have bought Wii and 360. I think by now Sony would much closer to 360 and ahead of Wii if they were at $300 to $350 dollars. They would still be in the mainstream and publishers would have stayed loyal, maybe not all, but I don't think it would be this bad.

There's another issue here and that's in the wooing you do with the publishers and devs. The PS1 managed to woo a lot of previously Nintendo-loyal devs with advanced graphical capabilities and larger disk space (we all know how happy Square was to have those) but this gen Sony's overtures for these (Sony does have a similar strategy to the PS1) were countered by MS's development tool strategy and 1 year headstart strategy (which enabled a larger install base from the get go).

[joquito]

Sony made tons of dough from the licensing of the CD, but it paled compared with what they made from the Playstation brand. Given that DVD isn't anywhere near the penetration level of CD, why would anyone expect Blu-Ray to get there any faster or generate more revenue? (DVD: Fastest selling medium EVER) So pissing the Playstation brand down the tubes to make pennies on Blu-Ray is like selling your car for gas money.

[Mochan]

But Sony did not expect to "sell the car" as you have put it; they thought they could get gas money by using the car. Obviously it is not working too well.

[Gadfly2317]

Indeed. Apple's strategy isn't to create the idea of value, it's to create the idea of prestige and class. Somehow the PS3 hasn't come across as a classy platform, and it's not like gamers really care about that image crap anyway. Gamers stay at home to play in isolation, not go out to groove with their iPods dangling around their neck.

That's funny you say that, because it is easy to imagine the Ps3 replacing Flavor-Flav's giant clock-necklaces. The Ps3 is expensive and shiny and its inevitable appearance in rap videos, perhaps installed in, and conveniently rhyming with 300c will give it the fashion/image boost it needs.

[ilnadmy]

That's funny you say that, because it is easy to imagine the Ps3 replacing Flavor-Flav's giant clock-necklaces. The Ps3 is expensive and shiny and its inevitable appearance in rap videos, perhaps installed in, and conveniently rhyming with 300c will give it the fashion/image boost it needs.
Sort of like how rappers used to rap about the Xbox and their 50" screens?

[ThaMaskedGamer]

But Sony did not expect to "sell the car" as you have put it; they thought they could get gas money by using the car. Obviously it is not working too well.

There is only one thing that Sony thought. "Everyone one with a PS2 was happy and will automatically migrate to PS3, no matter the cost no matter the lack of quality games." The problem is I don't think everybody with a PS2 was as happy as they claimed to be last generation(especially a lot of gamers here, I mean some die-hard Sony fans jumped REAL quick to 360 lol). I think a large portion of that fan base, most likely older gamers say 25+ males, weren't very happy with the PS2. And they were willing to give Sony the benefit of the doubt until the PS3 released, but once they saw what Sony was doing, higher prices but same crappy games and services, they said not again for me, see ya.

I just don't see how hardcore gamers could have been satisfied with the PS2. You couldn't play anything *hardcore(Doom3, Farcry, HL2, RacingGames)* you couldn't play online, the games looked like crap, and so many people were truly utilizing a PC to augment PS2. PS2 is a mainstream machine for average gamers and young teens. The young male who earns $50,000 a year and up was never gonna be happy with the PS2. Now Sony has alienated the mainstream crowd and doesn't know how to please that coveted male demographic that buys a game a week. Sony just can't cater to the hardcore gamer cause it is NOT what they are good at, but that is where they've priced themselves.

[PapaSmurf]

I was going to disagree with your post up until I saw the part where you said we utilized the PC to augment the PS2. PC as the lot of us PC gamers have stated before was the number 1 reason we didn't buy an Xbox.

I still disagree with your post a bit nonetheless. I was very satisfied with my PS2. GTA3 when it first came out and I got it and no one knew about it, was the shiznit. God of War, MGS, FF, Gungrave (I wish there would be more games like this), Ace Combat, Tokyo Xtreme Racer. With the PS2 it wasn't about graphics, it was about games. I still believe PS2 had better games (exclusive to it as in not on PC) than the xbox. PS2 gave me a good run and it still is. Just check out my currently playing list.

Again though, I mostly agree with your post, and you might see even Ilnadmy, Mochan and me with 360's in the next year. Not sure if you'll see us on live since we still are cheap PC free online bastards.

[trebor]

I believe what is truly happening is something that none of us here, or Sony for that matter, could have ever predicted in a million years - that Blu-ray would start winning the HD format wars, but the PS3 would struggle to the extent that it is.

Considering most of us predicted that the fate of the PS3 was intrinsically tied to whether Blu-ray failed or succeeded, but such is not the case. Blu-ray IS succeeding, but the PS3, for all intents and purposes, is a failure. Perhaps now the PS3 will start benefiting more because of it's inherent ties to Blu-ray rather than the other way around.

[Aylmer]

Sony has time and money on their side, and, it was just a couple of years ago that the end of Nintendo was being forecast right here on this very board. The Gamecube was tanking, and tho the Ds was doing ok, the big N was given last rites in the full size console market by many pundits. How times change.

Remember, Sony has three consoles now, the PS2, PS3, and PSP. So did Nintendo back then. There are lots of PS2 titles still being released, and more are planned.

Regarding BluRay, there are lots of players besides the PS3, and some are even cheaper than the PS3.

Finally, Sony has the one thing that will guarantee Blu Ray dominance, and that is content. They own the copyrights and distribution rights to lots and lots of movies.

It is way too soon to bury Sony, IMO. If you've ever read any books by or about Akio Morita (the late founder of Sony) or their corporate strategy, you'd know that for every innovative technology they bring to market, there are many more stashed away in their vaults.

[Mochan]

I just don't see how hardcore gamers could have been satisfied with the PS2. You couldn't play anything *hardcore(Doom3, Farcry, HL2, RacingGames)* you couldn't play online, the games looked like crap, and so many people were truly utilizing a PC to augment PS2. PS2 is a mainstream machine for average gamers and young teens.


Whoa whoa whoa the PS2 might not have been a perfect gaming machine but it was a lot better than the XBox IMNSHO. I don't think we can pass any judgements on how happy people were with the PS2 simply based on the PS3 not being widely adopted.

While the 360 is looking great right now, it's not because the Sony fans were dissatisfied with the PS2 and thus not giving the PS3 the time of day, it's because the PS3 simply is too expensive without enough games to back it up.

[Gadfly2317]

Sony has time and money on their side, and, it was just a couple of years ago that the end of Nintendo was being forecast right here on this very board. The Gamecube was tanking, and tho the Ds was doing ok, the big N was given last rites in the full size console market by many pundits. How times change.

A slide from dominance is all anyone has really predicted for Ps3, certainly not doom. (Well, I say "doomed" a lot because I like the word. . .it's a Zim thing.) Yet everyone kind of sees it as doom, as though anything less than a repeat of massive dominance is failure for Sony.

They've set a high bar for themselves with the Ps2, and with their claims about the Ps3. All doomcrying aside, I think all gamers would hope the Ps3 can someday deliver what Sony claims, because as good as the gaming selection is getting on the 360, I'm not that blown away by its graphics, or the Ps3's yet.

[PapaSmurf]

...I'm not that blown away by its graphics, or the Ps3's yet.

Well is that's the case, have you seen our Rob's PC? :D

[Mochan]

Ilnadmy's PC should be churning out some massively awesome graphics as well; his PC is specced better than RtR's in all ways except sound.

[PapaSmurf]

i hadn't seen ilna's specs

[NEO-360]

I believe what is truly happening is something that none of us here, or Sony for that matter, could have ever predicted in a million years - that Blu-ray would start winning the HD format wars, but the PS3 would struggle to the extent that it is.

Considering most of us predicted that the fate of the PS3 was intrinsically tied to whether Blu-ray failed or succeeded, but such is not the case. Blu-ray IS succeeding, but the PS3, for all intents and purposes, is a failure. Perhaps now the PS3 will start benefiting more because of it's inherent ties to Blu-ray rather than the other way around.

When Sony said that the PS3 isnt a videogame console its a computer does it really come as a surprise on how bad the PS3 is currently doing after that statement? Blu-ray or not its about the games for most.

Most of us already have a DVD player. Most of us has a PS2 already if we want to play PS2 & PS1 games. And considering that developers were whining about how hard it was to develop games for the PS3 once you add up all those things the end result is what we currently have:A hot mess!!! :aureola:

[ThaMaskedGamer]

I was going to disagree with your post up until I saw the part where you said we utilized the PC to augment the PS2. PC as the lot of us PC gamers have stated before was the number 1 reason we didn't buy an Xbox.

I still disagree with your post a bit nonetheless. I was very satisfied with my PS2. GTA3 when it first came out and I got it and no one knew about it, was the shiznit. God of War, MGS, FF, Gungrave (I wish there would be more games like this), Ace Combat, Tokyo Xtreme Racer. With the PS2 it wasn't about graphics, it was about games. I still believe PS2 had better games (exclusive to it as in not on PC) than the xbox. PS2 gave me a good run and it still is. Just check out my currently playing list.

Again though, I mostly agree with your post, and you might see even Ilnadmy, Mochan and me with 360's in the next year. Not sure if you'll see us on live since we still are cheap PC free online bastards.

First about the PC and PS3 together united as one against the mighty 360. Last gen, that argument may have made a little sense because you could still run a lot of games on an older system and PS2 was between $150-300. This generation to run games that look as sweet as they do on 360 you need a monster rig, so the cost of keeping up with the Joneses is crazy. Then the PS3 cost more than the 360 too. So anything that cost more than the 360 should be able to stand on its own too feet.

About your argument that you can get everything you want from XBOX on the PC. Well, that's just your gaming tastes. There are scores of games you can't get on the PC that was on XBOX. Just like this generation there are already plenty of games you can't get on the PC. Where u gonna get Crackdown, Deadrising, Lost Planet? That's just a few million seller games. So I never bought that argument, unless you wanna say you aren't interested in those games and others, then that argument makes a little sense.

As far as satisfaction with the PS2. I'm sure there are millions of people satisfied with PS2, just as i'm sure there are millions who were NOT satisfied with it. A lot of people here switch to XBOX last gen. Many have switched to 360 this gen after wanting to switch last gen but waiting to see how good or bad PS3 is. In terms of a games machine right now the PS3 is just sucking azz, and I'm sure it is tough for gamers to keep staying on the sidelines waiting for PS3 to live up to its potential. Especially when 360 is already living up to that potential and has been all along. If a person is purely interested in games, they are gonna have a hard time choosing a PS3 over a 360 any time in the near future, not saying they won't make that choice, but they know they will be unhappy in the immediate future and that any pay-off will be coming much later.

[ilnadmy]

Where u gonna get Crackdown, Deadrising, Lost Planet?

Who says we want those games?

You make it seem like people have been dying to switch to Xbox last gen, and have been waiting until the current gen to make the switch. Are you serious? So you're saying millions upon millions of consumers were suffering silently under the oppressive PS2 regime? They couldn't buy the Xbox because it was punishable by death? Face it, the PS2 was king last gen. Things are different this gen, that's how it works.

[PapaSmurf]

First about the PC and PS3 together united as one against the mighty 360. Last gen, that argument may have made a little sense because you could still run a lot of games on an older system and PS2 was between $150-300. This generation to run games that look as sweet as they do on 360 you need a monster rig, so the cost of keeping up with the Joneses is crazy. Then the PS3 cost more than the 360 too. So anything that cost more than the 360 should be able to stand on its own too feet.

About your argument that you can get everything you want from XBOX on the PC. Well, that's just your gaming tastes. There are scores of games you can't get on the PC that was on XBOX. Just like this generation there are already plenty of games you can't get on the PC. Where u gonna get Crackdown, Deadrising, Lost Planet? That's just a few million seller games. So I never bought that argument, unless you wanna say you aren't interested in those games and others, then that argument makes a little sense.

As far as satisfaction with the PS2. I'm sure there are millions of people satisfied with PS2, just as i'm sure there are millions who were NOT satisfied with it. A lot of people here switch to XBOX last gen. Many have switched to 360 this gen after wanting to switch last gen but waiting to see how good or bad PS3 is. In terms of a games machine right now the PS3 is just sucking azz, and I'm sure it is tough for gamers to keep staying on the sidelines waiting for PS3 to live up to its potential. Especially when 360 is already living up to that potential and has been all along. If a person is purely interested in games, they are gonna have a hard time choosing a PS3 over a 360 any time in the near future, not saying they won't make that choice, but they know they will be unhappy in the immediate future and that any pay-off will be coming much later.

Monster rig? Personal tastes!? There's only one game out on the 360 the looks better than any PC game I'm playing right now on my current rig and that's Gears of War. Have you played Company of Heroes or GRAW (PC version)? Those two games right there look better than any 360 game i've seen minus GoW. I only have a lowly X800 video card, no duo-core processor and just a gig of ram. That doesn't cost much these days. Plus you bring in the arguement about games we can't get on the PC but can get on the 360. Well I'll have you know that arguement goes the to other way too. CoH was probably the best game I played last year and there are others like WoW, Gothic 3, Rome: Total War, BF:2, BF2142, STALKER and the various mods for games like HL2's DoD:S and CS:S. Not to mention the games coming down the line like Quake Wars: Enemy Territory (which looks amazing btw). Where are you going to get those games? Not on the 360 I'll tell you that. I could list exclusives all day if you want to get into a contest.

Last gen the only game I really wanted for xbox was JSRF. Everything else I was playing on my PC (even Halo for christ's sake). I was a PC gamer before the PS2 came out as the lot of us PC gamers were. Consoles are the compliment to our PC, it isn't the other way around which is why we found it hard to justify buying an Xbox then and while we still find it hard to justify buying any next-gen console for that matter.

You're always going to miss out on something unless you own everything so if you're skipping on anything already taken that into account. I know I personally would miss out on more games if I didn't have my PC. You want to talk about money. Well I haven't see you on these boards where discussed the price of PC's vs consoles a while back so I'll give you the summary of my arguement. Yes the PC is more expensive at the point of purchase. This is true. However when you take into account that the games are usually 10-30$ cheaper (next-gen console games are coming out 60$ wtf?), they usually come down in price faster too, and I don't have to pay to play online. At the end of the day the price comes to about the same ammount. No to mention HD and Blue-ray Drives should be coming along soon enough for cheaper as well. Also, if you really want to talk about expensive we could get into pirating which makes PC gaming that much less expensive, but I'm not about that so I'll just leave it at that.

Oh year and then there's that preference of a keyboard and mouse for FPS gaming. That's just preference though.

[Mochan]

You don't need a monster rig to keep up with the 360. A 7800GS and an Athlon 64 3000 or so is more than enough to keep up with anything the 360 has to offer at a similar performance point, and you can get both for about $250US. Add in say another $100-$200 for the rest of hte system and you're good to go (won't even need to if you have parts lying around).

This kind of PC runs stuff like Condemned, Quake 4, Prey and Oblivion without any issues and on settings comparable or better than the 360 equivalent. Vegas runs fairly well, not blazing 60fps at 1280x1024 that I want but it's above a good 30fps, which is what you can expect on the 360 anyway.

GOW is probably a different matter, but whatever. The 360 does have some high points, but that's just one. The PC has far more.

On the next batch of games the 360 will show more of its pizazz, but these games will still run on that PC mentioned at less detail, I do not know if it will be comparable to 360 detail but it shouldn't be too far off, or you can just get a better PC for about $600US and it will run those just fine (or even get a more expensive, up to date system that blows the 360 and PS3 away with maximum intolerance), and the price you pay for the games will even out as Papa Smurf mentioned.

[ThaMaskedGamer]

So it sounds to me like you guys enjoy the PC more than the 360. That's a totally different argument than the stupid position Papa put forward, I don't need a 360 because I can get most of the games on PC. No, you cannot.

I agree with anyone that if their chosen system is based around which ever system caters to their tastes, then by all means that is what they should game on. Regardless of the cost. The problem is, I don't hear this being said. You cannot get the particular PC you mentioned on the PS3 nor on the Wii, but I never hear anyone bashing the PS3 or Wii over it. You've always been able to get many of the top PS3 games on PC and XBOX and now 360. But whenever the 360 has a few games shared with the PC, that fact is somehow stressed.

My point is simple. Argue for whatever system you happen to like, i'm sure it is based on the games and services and how you like to get your game on. But when it comes to claiming which system is the BEST place to get the best games from all sources, then that crown has to get to the 360. Now do I expect you will agree with me, probably not, but deep inside you know it to be the truth.

Hell in a way, the PC is nothing more than a proving ground now for the 360. Release a game on the cheap for the PC, if it does well, turn it into an XBOX now 360 franchise. Hell whenever a developer gets big on the PC now they jump as fast as they can to the 360! Now, it looks like the same is holding true for PS games.

[ThaMaskedGamer]

Here is the theory,

I don't need a 360 because I can get all the 360 games on a PC. Which means you also don't need a PS3 because you can get all the PS3 games on a 360. But this view is skewed and we all know it.

Here is a more correct theory.

I don't need a PS3 because I can get all the PS3 games on a 360. I don't need a PC because I can get all the best PC games on a 360. In short, all I need is a 360, and maybe a Wii.

If you rationalize it to the nth degree, the PC and the PS3 right now are the two most redundant systems of them all. True their are games you will miss if you only have 1 system, we all know that, its common sense. But the 360 gives you the most coverage, at the cheapest price to boot!

[NEO-360]

Here is the theory,

I don't need a 360 because I can get all the 360 games on a PC. Which means you also don't need a PS3 because you can get all the PS3 games on a 360. But this view is skewed and we all know it.

Here is a more correct theory.

I don't need a PS3 because I can get all the PS3 games on a 360. I don't need a PC because I can get all the best PC games on a 360. In short, all I need is a 360, and maybe a Wii.

If you rationalize it to the nth degree, the PC and the PS3 right now are the two most redundant systems of them all. True their are games you will miss if you only have 1 system, we all know that, its common sense. But the 360 gives you the most coverage, at the cheapest price to boot!

Well done. :smilewinkgrin:

[PapaSmurf]

Consoles are the compliment to our PC, it isn't the other way around which is why we found it hard to justify buying an Xbox then and while we still find it hard to justify buying any next-gen console for that matter.
Um I wasn't just talking about the 360. Last gen the arguement held solely for the Xbox as the PS2 gave the most diversified experience, this is true. This gen it isn't just the 360 it's the PS3 too. I mentioned this. That's why we don't own any next-gen consoles at the moment. You make a bold claim that the PC is a redundant system and say that the 360 offers the most coverage. That's horsesh*t. The PC offers the most varied gaming experience you can find, not the 360. Like I said in my previous post, we can go list for list all day long, the question is are you up to it?

You're bias toward the 360 has you thinking we're just bias toward the 360 which is totally untrue and if you had been here in these forums consistently you'd know that we use the same arguements the for 360 against the PS3. None of us have even talked about a PS3/PC combo. You're making this stuff up. Find some quote where we said we need or even want a PS3 and it has a better diversity? We didn't. Most of us have said at this current moment we'd buy a 360 over a PS3 if we were to buy a console right now. We already know we can get the good PS3 games on 360 hence we don't own one (also the same reason we don't own a 360), but hell we never argued this so I don't know how it came into your head. Again just read my last quote. We're covering all our bases and not just attacking the 360, but both next-gen consoles (Wii falls into it's own little category).

[ThaMaskedGamer]

You make a bold claim that the PC is a redundant system and say that the 360 offers the most coverage. That's horsesh*t. The PC offers the most varied gaming experience you can find, not the 360. Like I said in my previous post, we can go list for list all day long, the question is are you up to it?



Okay, I agree YOU now seem to be including all the consoles as well. Which turns this into a consoles v. PC discussion, which you also lose. But even if you want to single it out and say PC v. 360, PC v. Wii, andn PC v. PS3. You have to remember one thing, these next gen systems are in their infancy, there is never a particular cut-off in time where every PC gamer has to go and simultaneously upgrade all of their hardware, and game developers and everything have to shift platforms. So that is just a suckers bet that I won't take right now because for the PC you can all the way back to Syndicate Wars in terms of catalog.

What I will bet and we can go list for list, is that the XBOX platforms have had the most cross-over from PS2/3 and PC.

So of XBOX/360 having the most PS2/PS3 and PC franchises, compared to
PS3 having the most XBOX/360 and PC franchises, compared to
PC having the most XBX/360 and PS2/PS3 franchises, the XBOX/360 has the most. There is just no way around this, and I wouldn't even make an attempt to do so if I was you.

You gotta remember, GrandTheftAuto, GhostRecon, Rainbow6, Oblivion, Doom, Halflife, Splinter Cell to new games like GTR, LOTR, Battlefield, and scores of others started on PC. Then you switch to what XBOX/360 got from PS2/3 like Onimusha, Silent Hill, Metal Gear, to new games like Armored Core, Ace Combat, DMC, FF, R.E., ....its just no competition, more projects have migrated to XBX/360 than to PC and PS2/PS3. Interestingly enough, this argument is built on the fact that XBOX originally didn't have but a handful of franchises, so if it was to be a success, this had to happen this way.

Anyway, if you wanna go list for list, just say so. But I don't think you've thought this through.

[PapaSmurf]

Well DMC, RE, FF (FF8 and FF11), Metal Gear (MGS1), and Onimusha and some of those other games also came to PC, not just xbox. I wasn't even thinking about those games when I was referring to my old arguenment. You bring up FF, RE, and MGS which have all only had one run on an MS console and some of them weren't even the latest iterations. I don't think you've thought this through. Lets make some lists!

[Mochan]

I don't need a PS3 because I can get all the PS3 games on a 360. I don't need a PC because I can get all the best PC games on a 360. In short, all I need is a 360, and maybe a Wii.


And you'd be wrong, because there's a ton of stuff on the PC you can't get on the 360, and I'm not just talking about games that have equivalents (like Gothic 3 = Oblivion) but a whole slew of game genres not available, try games like Supreme Commander, Dreamfall, Neverwinter Nights 2, Silent Hunter 4, Medieval Total War 2, Stronghold Legends, Titan Quest, Company of Heroes, UFO Afterlight, Black and White 2, Fairy Godmother Tycoon, the list goes on and on, these are not just games but complete gaming genres you cannot get on the 360! And that's just recent games!! We're not even getting into the older ones.


Okay, I agree YOU now seem to be including all the consoles as well. Which turns this into a consoles v. PC discussion, which you also lose.


TMG, you've been away for a while and you don't know how the chips fall these days. Your old XBox Crusader agenda is so passe it's sickening. And so is your "PC is inferior to consoles" whining.

Believe it or not, PC heads here actually find the 360 to be the best console to get at the moment. So cram a sock into your XBox Crusader agenda. And when it comes to "console is better" just show me with the Wii and the PS3 sucking so badly, and the 360 showing nothing but rehashes, hell it is even turning once innovative games like Rainbow Six into yet another run-of-the-mill shooter, where is the console dominance? All I see is old games with a new fresh coat of paint.

Where are the games like Supreme Commander which truly push the boundaries of gaming? They're on the PC, that's where.


Okay, I agree YOU now seem to be including all the consoles as well. Which turns this into a consoles v. PC discussion, which you also lose.

I barely even care about crossover, we're not talking about which console is the best at stealing games from other platforms, we're talking about which platform has the best gaming coverage -- which platform lets you play the most games and the most KIND of games on. While stealing franchises from other platforms does indeed help in this case, it's still not enough.

It's as we articulate: PC has all of the 360's game genres, and any game you have on the 360 you can either get on the PC, or you can play an equivalent of it on the PC, and get a similar experience. The same cannot be said of the 360 -- and I have listed a whole slew of games you cannot play or even get close to a similar experience to on the 360. And I did not even use the "sucker's bet" that you cowardly ran away from -- games I listed came out only in the past few years, they're contemporary with the 360. If I dug up older games even just up to 5 years older the list would be longer and the domination would be complete.

You say the XBox has the most games because it stole the most games from the other platforms, that just gives you more game titles but even then it doesn't even come close to giving you more games than the PC, or more importantly, more genres of games. And since, as you said, it's a crossover, that means many of those games are available on the PC as well.
Some of the Playstation titles are harder to match (that's why the PS2 was a good complement last gen) but let's see: Ace Combat is matched by Falcon 4, Armored Core by Mech Warrior 4 (an old game though I admit -- like I said I need to dig into older games to complete the domination). The other stuff have come to the PC (360 isn't the only crossover platform; PC is good at stealing games too) like Silent Hill, Onimusha, Final Fantasy, Resident Evil, and Devil May Cry.

On the other hand your XBox 360 has nothing to match up to games like I mentioned above. While I admit 360 may finally get something decent on the RTS front now that Halo's brand is on it, we have yet to see. But if you notice I didn't use future "to come" games in my list (I conveniently did not bring up Hellgate London, which is another genre you do not have). I mean, we're not into PotentialStations here right?

So hey! I argue games and I give game titles to prove my point. So if you have anything further to say, get with the program and argue like a real man instead of hiding behind nebulous, unproven statements like "360 has the most game coverage from the most sources!" If you want to argue further come up with a list of XBox 360 games to match my list above. If you can't, it's game over for you.


It evolves to this "But when it comes to claiming which system is the BEST place to get the best games from all sources, then that crown has to get to the 360. " More like "But when it comes to claiming which system is the BEST place to get the best games from all sources, then that crown has to get to the PC."

[Mochan]

I remembered another game that has no equivalent whatsoever for the Xbox. Check out Space Rangers 2. And how about space sim trader games? X3 is fairly new and I believe there was another new one that came out, Dark Star 1.

[ThaMaskedGamer]

Well DMC, RE, FF (FF8 and FF11), Metal Gear (MGS1), and Onimusha and some of those other games also came to PC, not just xbox. I wasn't even thinking about those games when I was referring to my old arguenment. You bring up FF, RE, and MGS which have all only had one run on an MS console and some of them weren't even the latest iterations. I don't think you've thought this through. Lets make some lists!

No need. First, the empirical evidence is just stacked against you. Second, I don't have an axe to grind against PC gaming. I don't even think of the PC as equivalent to the consoles, somehow these debates about PS3 always end up with the PC...

I really don't feel like taking this PC v. Consoles or PC v. 360, tireless futile debate much further. PC gaming is a style of gaming distinctly different from console gaming, i am NOT against PC gaming. Like MS has stated I don't believe the PC market encroaches on the console market. So really i'm sorry, I got into this debate, I have to remember in the future, to not fall for the bait when people mention the PC. It really doesn't belong in these forums, there is a reason why when NPD data is released, PC numbers are not comingled.

I know you and Mochan feel like the PC belongs in this discussion though.

[ThaMaskedGamer]

And you'd be wrong, because there's a ton of stuff on the PC you can't get on the 360. First of all, i'm going to nip this debate in the bud, because it is futile and I don't even dislike PC gaming. You are right, there are tons of games you can't get, as if I said there were. I only said 360 had the most cross-overs from PC and PS platforms. In other words the best place to get games from all three platforms. Oh I also the PC is now a proving ground for the 360. Once a PC project is proven successful, it usually comes to the 360.




<b>
TMG, you've been away for a while and you don't know how the chips fall these days. Your old XBox Crusader agenda is so passe it's sickening. And so is your "PC is inferior to consoles" whining. </b> It is not just my belief, a lot of others feel that way to. Also, we don't feel PC gaming is inferior, it is just substantially different, kinda like my view that handhelds should not be compared to consoles.

<b>
Believe it or not, PC heads.</b> Believe it or not, I don't care what PC heads think. They don't move the industry, their effect is barely felt anymore. PCs as a devices in the entertainment space are becoming redundant with things like IPODs, MP3 players, Apple TV, LIVE. More and more devices are allowing people to move away from PCs and toward the TV. PC heads are not a relevant factor in the decisions MS, Sony or Nintendo make nor the majority of publishers and developers in the console space. So I'm glad you like PC gaming..enjoy it. Like many here, including myself, have told, the whole world knows about PC gaming. There are more PCs than all of the consoles combined. I have 3 PCs in my home. PC gaming is NOT some well kept secret gaming panacea. Yet gamers have spoken and many many more people prefer gaming on consoles and other devices than they do on the PC. Does it make it better than PC gaming I guess in a way it does. When consumers speak with dollars they are in effect voting their approval or disproval. If all of the factors PC heads state in their mission to convince us that PC gaming is more fun really mattered, PC would handily be the dominant force in gaming. But PCs are NOT.
Which means all of the things, you, subjectively love, cannot be objectively considered as advantages.

You said i'm on an 360 or XBOX crusade. As I recall, this post was about the PS3 and to some degree 360 and Wii. I'm sorry I drew Papa in or he drew me into a PC discussion. This thread has absolutely NOTHING to do with the PC. So let me get back to my 360 crusade. World please go out and buy the 360, it desperately needs your support, it is the KING of gaming. It will turn your life around and attract dozens of beautiful women. Go 360, go!!!