Battle of the Next-Generation Consoles

Originally posted by quanchi112
I never said it was solely based on graphics not once. I hear a lot of excuses and complaining about the ps3 from xbox fans. It can do all that and more than an xbox. We've seen third party developers already back up the ps3 in terms of I doubt you could do this game on the xbox. I mean I put this stuff up pages ago.

I hear more excuses from xbox supporters. That's all I hear and then I hear about sales which has nothing to do with which system is more powerful by any means.

Should I repost my earlier posts of proof which you either didn't read or forgot. I didn't post links of my opinion either.

So these games rival the graphics of unchartered 2 and gow3 or surpass them iyo ? I originally said rival but I am curious if you believe they surpass them.

You are the one that keeps bringing the argument back to "But GoW3 and Uncharted are pretty!", not anyone else. So yes, you are the one that keeps trying to make the argument about graphics.

Third-party developers back up the PS3? So that's why so many former PS3 exclusives went multiplatform, right? And why multiplatform games either look exactly the same on both systems or a bit better on the 360, right? Or why multiplatform games, with very few exceptions (FFXIII being the only one to come to mind) are developed first on the 360 and then ported over, right? Or why the very few MS exclusives that went multiplatform did months - or years - after their release on the 360, right? Third-party developers heavily favor the 360. Why? Because while the power is slightly less, it's not so difficult to work with that they can actually use it. Having more power is useless if the developers are unwilling to fully use it because it is not worth the time, money, or effort to do so. Potential is absolutely meaningless.

And yes, I think the graphics of those games I listed not only compare but surpass them.

Originally posted by General Kaliero
The complaining is coming from the PS3 fan in the room, from what I see.

What third party developers? Name names.

Sales has more to do with success than power. Power alone does not make a profit.

I never said the ps3 was more successful than the xbox. Not once. I said it fits and meets my needs as a gamer more so than the xbox due to the reasons I have listed various times. You tried changing the argument on me and wanting to compare numbers overall of sales.

I got only a composite cable for my 360. My PS3 quite blows anything on my 360 away graphically. And I still play the XBox more...haha.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I got only a composite cable for my 360. My PS3 quite blows anything on my 360 away graphically. And I still play the XBox more...haha.

Originally posted by Peach
You are the one that keeps bringing the argument back to "But GoW3 and Uncharted are pretty!", not anyone else. So yes, you are the one that keeps trying to make the argument about graphics.

Third-party developers back up the PS3? So that's why so many former PS3 exclusives went multiplatform, right? And why multiplatform games either look exactly the same on both systems or a bit better on the 360, right? Or why multiplatform games, with very few exceptions (FFXIII being the only one to come to mind) are developed first on the 360 and then ported over, right? Or why the very few MS exclusives that went multiplatform did months - or years - after their release on the 360, right? Third-party developers heavily favor the 360. Why? Because while the power is slightly less, it's not so difficult to work with that they can actually use it. [b]Having more power is useless if the developers are unwilling to fully use it because it is not worth the time, money, or effort to do so. Potential is absolutely meaningless.

And yes, I think the graphics of those games I listed not only compare but surpass them. [/B]

So difficult to work with ? What ports have been canceled because it was too difficult to work with on the ps3 ? They are comparable and go both ways on both systems with the difference minimal. They don't always look better on the xbox than the ps3 either. They tend to go either way.

We've seen what is capable on with the ps3 and it looks to me to be superior to what I have seen on the xbox.

It seems you just argue for the xbox at this point and want to downplay everything and minimize everything made by sony imo.

Hey to each his own my points still stand though.

Originally posted by General Kaliero
And this is your answer, quan. More people play 360 more (which is what those sales figures were meant to show you, by the way) which means that the 360, as a console, is superior to the PS3, theoretical graphical superiority be damned.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Graphics have to do with the power of the system which ps3 has them by which you cannot deny. You can downplay it but cannot deny it.

So difficult to work with ? What ports have been canceled because it was too difficult to work with on the ps3 ? They are comparable and go both ways on both systems with the difference minimal. They don't always look better on the xbox than the ps3 either. They tend to go either way.

We've seen what is capable on with the ps3 and it looks to me to be superior to what I have seen on the xbox.

It seems you just argue for the xbox at this point and want to downplay everything and minimize everything made by sony imo.

Hey to each his own my points still stand though.

Where'd I say anything about ports being canceled? I didn't; learn to read. Or at least comprehend what you're reading.

Funnily enough, I used to be quite the Sony fan, up until this generation. But between the fact that Sony got greedy after the success of the PS2, and the fact that no one in their marketing department can tell the difference between their ass and a hole in the ground...yeah. They majorly dropped the ball and screwed up hugely.

You have no points, is the point.

Originally posted by quanchi112
It is more successful now which doesn't mean anything in terms of which system is superior to the other from a capabilities point or a technical point.

The Gamecube was technologically superior to the PS2, last generation. That did not stop the PS2 from soundly winning that generation's "war."

Technological superiority does not matter, when it comes to overall superiority, which is determined by how well it sells because that's a rough indicator of how much people are enjoying playing it.

Originally posted by Peach
Where'd I say anything about ports being canceled? I didn't; learn to read. Or at least comprehend what you're reading.

Funnily enough, I used to be quite the Sony fan, up until this generation. But between the fact that Sony got greedy after the success of the PS2, and the fact that no one in their marketing department can tell the difference between their ass and a hole in the ground...yeah. They majorly dropped the ball and screwed up hugely.

You have no points, is the point.

I favored the xbox a system ago when I was semi into video games.

Exclusives look better for ps3 than xbox and it's more powerful. It also serves as a blu ray player which the xbox does not. These are the reasons why I favor it. My points have always stood continue to pretend these valid reasons don't exist for why I choose the ps3 to the xbox.

Originally posted by General Kaliero
I don't give a shit about technological superiority. The PS3 is technologically superior this generation, this much is obvious to anyone with enough intelligence to read a tech spec list.

The Gamecube was technologically superior to the PS2, last generation. That did not stop the PS2 from soundly winning that generation's "war."

Technological superiority does not matter, when it comes to overall superiority, which is determined by how well it sells because that's a rough indicator of how much people are enjoying playing it.

Originally posted by quanchi112
they can make games just as easily for the ps3 as for xbox.

Originally posted by General Kaliero
No, they can't. Lern2read.

Originally posted by quanchi112
My point was it's a port so they are roughly going to be the same with minimal differences. your point was never a point as they can make games just as easily for the ps3 as for xbox. Now if they want to make it exclusive and delve into the potential of the ps3 it's tricker but we've seen how impressive games can look on the ps3 as already previously named.

I favored the xbox a system ago when I was semi into video games.

Exclusives look better for ps3 than xbox and it's more powerful. It also serves as a blu ray player which the xbox does not. These are the reasons why I favor it. My points have always stood continue to pretend these valid reasons don't exist for why I choose the ps3 to the xbox.

No, they cannot make games just as easily for the PS3 as for the 360. Holy crap, what part of "the Cell processor is needlessly complicated to work with and program for and hence developers do not find it worth their time, money, or effort to put much effort into utilizing it" is hard to get? It's not simply trickier. It is completely and totally different, and far more difficult.

Blu-ray player is irrelevant. You can get a standalone player for much cheaper, it's a brand new format released when DVDs still are a baby format and have just barely reached market saturation, and HDTVs are still too expensive for many people. Not to mention the fact that it really counts against the PS3 when many people get it for the player first and games second. The PS3 does have a very low software attach rate, after all; something like 3.4. Meaning, that for every system sold, on average 3.4 games are sold.

If people aren't buying a game system for the games, then clearly it fails as a game system.

Originally posted by Peach
No, they cannot make games just as easily for the PS3 as for the 360. Holy crap, what part of "the Cell processor is needlessly complicated to work with and program for and hence developers do not find it worth their time, money, or effort to put much effort into utilizing it" is hard to get? It's not simply trickier. It is completely and totally different, and far more difficult.

Blu-ray player is irrelevant. You can get a standalone player for much cheaper, it's a brand new format released when DVDs still are a baby format and have just barely reached market saturation, and HDTVs are still too expensive for many people. Not to mention the fact that it really counts against the PS3 when many people get it for the player first and games second. The PS3 does have a very low software attach rate, after all; something like 3.4. Meaning, that for every system sold, on average 3.4 games are sold.

If people aren't buying a game system for the games, then clearly it fails as a game system.

See here you ago again it isn't irrelevant. why buy a cheaper blu ray player when I can get a kickass videogame system and a blu ray player in one.

What's cheaper, an xbox 360 and a blu ray player or a ps3 ?

I did buy the system for the games and got my blu ray player at the same time. Two birds, one stone.

Because it's not a kickass game system and blu-ray is currently pointless?

Seriously, if you're so sure the PS3 stands in its own as a game system, you shouldn't even be mentioning its crutch of a Blu-Ray player.

Originally posted by General Kaliero
Because it's not a kickass game system and blu-ray is currently pointless?

Seriously, if you're so sure the PS3 stands in its own as a game system, you shouldn't even be mentioning its crutch of a Blu-Ray player.

it does stand alone but also serves as a blu ray player. Why ignore it's double function simply because the xbox cannot do it ?

Originally posted by quanchi112
I think it is and you saying it isn't is just your opinion and not a fact. It is a rival of the xbox without a doubt.

it does stand alone but also serves as a blu ray player. Why ignore it's double function simply because the xbox cannot do it ?

Why is it you get to state your opinion as fact, then?

And because it's not relevant to it's primary function, and since a great deal of PS3 owners use it mainly for a bluray player and not a gaming system, it in fact hurts it more than helps.

Originally posted by quanchi112
I think it is and you saying it isn't is just your opinion and not a fact. It is a rival of the xbox without a doubt.

it does stand alone but also serves as a blu ray player. Why ignore it's double function simply because the xbox cannot do it ?

It's not because the 360 cannot, don't attempt to twist my words. A game console should always stand on its games, not its extraneous features.

Originally posted by Peach
Why is it you get to state your opinion as fact, then?

And because it's not relevant to it's [b]primary function, and since a great deal of PS3 owners use it mainly for a bluray player and not a gaming system, it in fact hurts it more than helps. [/B]

I use it primarily as a gaming system but it serves as my blu ray player at the same time. I bought it originally just for games and then got into blu ray after I had the system.

Originally posted by General Kaliero
You think it is. I've shown from various sales figures and other collected data that the vast majority do not agree with you.

It's not because the 360 cannot, don't attempt to twist my words. A game console should always stand on its games, not its extraneous features.

Do you feel microsoft deem sony as a rival to their xbox or not ?

Originally posted by quanchi112
I have only stated it being more powerful and being a blu ray player as facts because they are. Exclusives for this system are completely subjective.

I use it primarily as a gaming system but it serves as my blu ray player at the same time. I bought it originally just for games and then got into blu ray after I had the system.

A ps3 is known for it's game primarily and secondarily as a blu ray player. Do you think most ps3 buyers get it primarily for the games or the blu ray ?

Do you feel microsoft deem sony as a rival to their xbox or not ?

Microsoft consider Sony a competitor. Just a competitor firmly in third place.