The End is Nigh!

Vigil wrote:
And Inside xbox in my opinion are untruthful.

still don't see how "check out this new demo" or "new DLC" is biased.

"oh look, there is a thing saying that the xbox exclusive demo of Brutal Legend is up until Oct 1st. thank god I pay attention to these tabs, otherwise i never would have known."

I meant more when they do interviews and videos to hype up shitty games.

They were really pedalling Too Human before it came out, as well as all their avatar crap. Not to mention advertsing very bad films.

I mean Pandorum, Gamer, The Day the Earth Stood still, AVP 2 have all been avertised on Live.

Sure they're not all bad, as I like IGN's stuff on it, but most of the time in our version we get an annoying little twat talking a bunch of crap I don't give too hoots about.

they adverted Teeth. and that was awesome.

and in case you didn't know, a lot of it is still paid advertising. they wouldn't have shit up about modern warfare 2 is Infinity Ward wasn't paying top dollar.

Sony loses money for every PS3 they sell, so they could actually have been doing well off and still lost cash.

the same was true with the 360 for a LONG time

KristallNacht wrote:they adverted Teeth. and that was awesome.

and in case you didn't know, a lot of it is still paid advertising. they wouldn't have shit up about modern warfare 2 is Infinity Ward wasn't paying top dollar.

The only reason they are advertising MW2 is because microsoft has made an exclusive deal with Infinity Ward so they will get the first few DLC before the PS3 does.

Microsoft know that this Winter they have virtually nothing to offer, so the main focus is getting people to buy the 360 version of MW2.

I think this battle over one game is very amusing, and soon we will see who wins.

its hardly one game dude....

the xbox has one upped the PS3 on pretty much ever holiday release title and most of Q1 2010

Vigil wrote:

KristallNacht wrote:they adverted Teeth. and that was awesome.

and in case you didn't know, a lot of it is still paid advertising. they wouldn't have shit up about modern warfare 2 is Infinity Ward wasn't paying top dollar.

The only reason they are advertising MW2 is because microsoft has made an exclusive deal with Infinity Ward so they will get the first few DLC before the PS3 does.

Microsoft know that this Winter they have virtually nothing to offer, so the main focus is getting people to buy the 360 version of MW2.

I think this battle over one game is very amusing, and soon we will see who wins.

MS will they usually do

Death no more wrote:

Vigil wrote:

KristallNacht wrote:they adverted Teeth. and that was awesome.

and in case you didn't know, a lot of it is still paid advertising. they wouldn't have shit up about modern warfare 2 is Infinity Ward wasn't paying top dollar.

The only reason they are advertising MW2 is because microsoft has made an exclusive deal with Infinity Ward so they will get the first few DLC before the PS3 does.

Microsoft know that this Winter they have virtually nothing to offer, so the main focus is getting people to buy the 360 version of MW2.

I think this battle over one game is very amusing, and soon we will see who wins.

MS will they usually do

Unless Sony can fail so hardcore they actually make Bill Gates laugh himself to death.

Like Bill Gates really handles any of the shit himself, he dies everything still runs.

Lord Pheonix wrote:Like Bill Gates really handles any of the shit himself, he dies everything still runs.

he doesn't even work at Microsoft anymore. did you guys forget this?

Meh, they're probably already working on the next next gen console, and I doubt they'll let MS get the upper hand this time.

While the original Xbox kicked the crap out of PS1 and PS2, and I don't regret buying a 360 instead of a PS3, I do admit that Sony simply cares more than MS.

CivBase wrote: I do admit that Sony simply cares more than MS.

you're sarcastic right? I've only heard the exact opposite from everywhere, ntm its demonstrated that the opposite is true.


plus both the PS3 and the 360 are going for a 10-year lifespan. and I can confirm that Microsoft isn't in the serious stages of another console (my uncle was one of the head admin guys on the xbox project as well as Surface)

Eh. I feel there are too few good games on the PS3. Hell, it's like the wii for me. Good for a quick game here, but nothing long lasting.

I still feel Sony is a strong contender in the console war(I can't believe I said that with a straight face...)

Not like I care really. As long as there are good games for them, I'll play them. Doesn't matter which console for me.

KristallNacht wrote:

Lord Pheonix wrote:Like Bill Gates really handles any of the shit himself, he dies everything still runs.

he doesn't even work at Microsoft anymore. did you guys forget this?

He's on the board of directors.

ReconToaster wrote:

KristallNacht wrote:

Lord Pheonix wrote:Like Bill Gates really handles any of the shit himself, he dies everything still runs.

he doesn't even work at Microsoft anymore. did you guys forget this?

He's on the board of directors.

Is he really?

Huh. I always thought that since he retired he just moved to Columbia to live like a drug lord in a palace in the hills.

PiEman wrote:

ReconToaster wrote:

KristallNacht wrote:

Lord Pheonix wrote:Like Bill Gates really handles any of the shit himself, he dies everything still runs.

he doesn't even work at Microsoft anymore. did you guys forget this?

He's on the board of directors.

Is he really?

Huh. I always thought that since he retired he just moved to Columbia to live like a drug lord in a palace in the hills.

And unleashing rabid mosquitoes upon unwary trespassers...

Felix wrote:Eh. I feel there are too few good games on the PS3. Hell, it's like the wii for me. Good for a quick game here, but nothing long lasting.

I still feel Sony is a strong contender in the console war(I can't believe I said that with a straight face...)

Not like I care really. As long as there are good games for them, I'll play them. Doesn't matter which console for me.

I played my PS2 a lot my than my original xbox. It was this generation I didn't go with them, mainly because the lack of exculsive titles I want to play (I think at best there are about 5-10 games on the PS3 I would get.) and the fact it is still very expensive.

What about the PSP Go? Who the Hell is going to buy that? You can't play any of your old games, you'll have to buy new memory cards and it has no used games facility.

Sony has kinda dropped the ball this time around.

Vigil wrote:

Felix wrote:Eh. I feel there are too few good games on the PS3. Hell, it's like the wii for me. Good for a quick game here, but nothing long lasting.

I still feel Sony is a strong contender in the console war(I can't believe I said that with a straight face...)

Not like I care really. As long as there are good games for them, I'll play them. Doesn't matter which console for me.

I played my PS2 a lot my than my original xbox. It was this generation I didn't go with them, mainly because the lack of exculsive titles I want to play (I think at best there are about 5-10 games on the PS3 I would get.) and the fact it is still very expensive.

What about the PSP Go? Who the Hell is going to buy that? You can't play any of your old games, you'll have to buy new memory cards and it has no used games facility.

Sony has kinda dropped the ball this time around.

It's not really expensive. The one I bought was twenty bucks cheaper and came with Killzone 2 and MGS 4. Not like I play them, my bro has the PS3, but it ain't expensive.

It is over here.

Its still £250, and that's the slimline version. Still too much for 5 games.

ReconToaster wrote:There's a BIG difference between "overpriced" and "expensive."

The PS3 never was over-priced. It was the cheapest blu-ray player on the market, it had the AMAZING cell processor, and what was, at the time, pretty top-of-the-line graphics technology.

It was NEVER over-priced, and if you think $300 dollars is even expensive... you're fucking insane. A netbook costs $300.

Don't get me wrong, the PS3 has some amazing equipment in it, but it was overpriced not because its hardware sucked but because its hardware was unnecessary. I mean, how many games have actually taken advantage of Blu-Ray capabilities? The problem is, third-party games aside, almost nothing is Sony exclusive, which means all of the amazing games that release for PS3 have to run on the Xbox360 too, meaning they can't take advantage of all of the awesome specs of the PS3. It's like buying all of the very top of the line PC hardware and then playing games from the 90's on it: not worth it.

ReconToaster wrote: Either way, Sony is nowhere near being out of the game. The PS3 only accounts for a small fraction of their losses. They've been loosing loads of money with their televisions, MP3 players, camcorders, laptops, ect ect ect, and if you really want to compare losses, Microsoft has done nothing but loose money with the XBOX brand. Setting up that customer-service repair center for the 360 alone cost them a whopping 3 BILLION dollars.

Sony will be fine.

This is probably true. As much as I wish Sony would just drop out and be replaced by a company that didn't have customer service worse than Microsoft (something I had hoped would never exist), I doubt this will be enough to knock them out of the gaming scene.

ReconToaster wrote: Bullshit. You and I both know that if google made a console, it would be full of nothing but shitty casual games. Google is FULL of hippies and "hipsters." It would be almost as bad as an Apple console.

I don't know if it would necessarily be terrible, but Google and Apple would both probably shoot for the same niche that Nintendo has: casual gamers; on this much, we agree.

ReconToaster wrote:what was, at the time, pretty top-of-the-line graphics technology.

you are aware that the 360s GPU is more efficient and powerful than the PS3s right?


my biggest issue with the ps3 is how slow things load, how long things take to install, and all that stuff.

like my friend who has both, he says when he turns the ps3 on he goes into ps3 mode where he gets really patient and doens't expect anythign to happen fast.

Largely, the PS3 loads slowly because nobody optimizes the games for the 8-core system.

It's running programs that are optimized for systems like the Xbox, which it isn't designed to do.

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:Largely, the PS3 loads slowly because nobody optimizes the games for the 8-core system.

false.

it loads slowly because blu-ray runs at 4x while dvd runs at 16x.

plus, the PS3 only allows developers access to the 1 main core and 5 of the secondary cores, while the 360 has 3 main cores with a virtual secondary core.

I mean, how many games have actually taken advantage of Blu-Ray capabilities? The problem is, third-party games aside, almost nothing is Sony exclusive, which means all of the amazing games that release for PS3 have to run on the Xbox360 too, meaning they can't take advantage of all of the awesome specs of the PS3. It's like buying all of the very top of the line PC hardware and then playing games from the 90's on it: not worth it.

Sony still has some very loyal third party developers, like Insomniac, Naughty Dog, and to some degree, Konami, and Square Enix.

The first Resistance took up over 22 GB of disc space, and the sequel used up nearly 50.

Konami had to actually remove features from MGS4 to make it fit on a double-layered Blu-Ray disc, though, to be fair, a lot of it was probably taken up by cutscenes.

The first Uncharted took up a pretty huge amount as well, and it's probably safe to say that its sequel, along with FFXIII, will take up a lot of space too. I'll bet Little Big Planet is pretty cumbersome as well.

To be honest, if I had the funds I'd probably sell my 360 in place of a PS3. Being that I have a decent PC, my 360 is pretty much... unattended to at this point.

At least the PS3 offers a unique variety of games that you wouldn't find elsewhere. Unless you're excluding the PC as a platform, the 360 has hardly any exclusive titles at all.