Aran said:
Shodan said:
Cardplayer said:
That has nothing to do with what you said, what I said in response to it, with the topic of this thread, or with anything that anyone has said. Stop rambling, thanks.Aran said:
Without the HDD, you can't save games. No one here has the time to play a game in one sitting. Some have jobs, others school be it high school or college.Aran said:I was not using it to justify the price, but when you are comparing the two units between the companies, you do need to take it all into consideration.
When, as sales have shown with the core 360 not selling well at all, the Core 360 is incapable of playing games online, then you have to consider that. Would you buy just a core 360? Would anyone here? Neither would I, and neither would many other people apparently.
Obviously going online is a huge desire for most of the people buying the 360 product, otherwisre the core would be selling better, wouldn't it? If you have objective conjecture to add, feel free.
No where have I said that, because they don't, at all. I'm not sure what hyper sensitive bizarro fanboy world you are living in though.
My logic is sound, if you won't answer to sound logic and mature discussion, there isn't much that can be done.
That must make you very happy, fanboy.
What an irrafutable statement.
Like I said, there is a lot more to consider then the base price of the PREMIUM unit. If you have anything useful to add feel free.
Ah, so you agree with me on principle and we're just haggling over the effectiveness of both companies strategies!
Though why do you consider the HDD necessary? backwards compatability? Storage? (You have already said that you do not consider Xbox live a necessity).
So if you buy the Core 360 + a Hard Drive it would bring your purchase to 399. If you Buy a Low End PS3, you get the Hard Drive packed in, bringout your purchase to 499, meaning that, yeah, for you the 360 represents the best purchase cost wise. For a person like you, the 360 will always then represent a better pricing option. Pointing out though, that under 10 percent of current 360 sales are a Core unit (Citing Ziff Davis), though perhaps the unit could be more valuable to Micorosft in the future as they further move to reduce the price.
However I do not belive that Sony will allow Microsoft to have a price gap graeater then 100 dollars relative to both of the premium units, if people want to play online, the units are very comparable, giving the edge to Sony in that situation. For those with no interest the features that the Premium Xbox 360 offers(admittedly a very small amount at this point) the 360 Core represents a vastly better pricing option.
A good way to look at the Low/High end PS3 is, looking at the Low end PS3 as a games machine that you have paid 2 years of Xbox Live for, and the High end as a price competitive HD Player to the cheapest HD-DVD player on the market that plays games. I do not know of any person who would buy the premium PS3 over the Core for reasons other then wanting to use it as a next gen media player. You're right in your point of view though, Imadaly, the PS3 is (perhaps detrementally so) front loaded.
Aren't you the guy that makes up Ph.D's based on whatever argument he's in, in whatever field is most relevant to that argument, to lend his otherwise laughable arguments some shred of credibility, but instead only getting laughed at? Yeah, I think that was youDanalys said:
Will the size of the PS3's ram expand and contract depending on how fast paced the game is? Do you even understand why the compression would be needed in the first place? I mean, wow, hahahaha
Sholdan said:
No, you actually just went into a rant about the core not being able to go online and ergo not being bought, as though I had somehow argued that the "play games and get online" requirements that you listed were faulty, when I did nothing of the sort. I said that you said "play games and get online" were all that people really wanted out of their machines, and then you contradicted yourself by proceeding to act as though all of the PS3's (unwanted, in your own words) fluff somehow justified it's high price. You didn't "address" anything I said period, much less well, you just went off into a rant.Aran said:
Shodan said:Aren't you the guy that makes up Ph.D's based on whatever argument he's in, in whatever field is most relevant to that argument, to lend his otherwise laughable arguments some shred of credibility, but instead only getting laughed at? Yeah, I think that was you
Anyways, to answer your question:
CAV (this is DVD): The drives transfer rate is
variable. Information on the inside tracks of the disc is read at
approximately half the speed as the information on the outside of the
disc.
CLV (this is Blu-Ray): The drives transfer speed is linear or
constant regardless of whether information is on the inside tracks of
the disc or the outside.
This was already posted much earlier in the thread. You wanna know something else that was posted? Well, in the first post, if you'd bother to read, you'd see that this was taken into account and the 360's read speed still comes out on top, even at the slower dual-layer 8x, and if you'd continue reading down the first page of the thread, you'd see that the former head of developer relations at Sony (as in, a guy who knows more about this stuff than "some guy on the internet", ala you) had also commented that even at 8x (the slowest speed the 360 uses), the DVD's speed was superior to that of the Blu-Ray's 2x. You fail, three different ways.
EDIT: You editted this in, and I just had to respond to it, because it was just funny.
Will the size of the PS3's ram expand and contract depending on how fast paced the game is? Do you even understand why the compression would be needed in the first place? I mean, wow, hahahaha
Hahaha, wow. Well, I guess that's what I get for not following the golden internet rule of "if they can't use the shift key, just smile and nod whenever they speak". You didn't see a percentage there......did you need one? I thought "Blu-Ray reads at the same speed, DVD reads at different speed for inner and outer data, this is the argument you are making and here is why it is wrong, and by the way this was all covered several pages ago, try to keep up you moron" covered it pretty nicely.Danalys said:
"I can't counter anything that you said, so instead I'll pretend like I have a counter just out of sight and quietly back out of the thread so I can save face" probably would have worked just as well.Aran said:
That doesn't make any sense. What I quoted was you saying you had provided an adequate response, which I responded to by showing that no, you didn't, which also happened to clearly show that I understood what was said. It doesn't get anymore simple than this. If you can't even grasp that, I think it may be time to hit the sack and try again tomorrow.Aran said:
Shodan said:
A majority will? Xbox live has less than 50% adoption rate, and that's silver and gold accounts combined, Microsoft won't release, to my knowledge, just gold. Your argument is a logical fallacy in and of itself.Aran said:
Just dumb, here's why, it's pretty simple actually: It only makes sense to compare the 360 premium to the PS3 premium, and it only makes sense to compare the 360 core to the PS3 core. These two systems are aimed at the same consumers ("Will pay for a better product" vs "looking for a cheaper way in"), and as such it makes no sense to mix and match them. I'm not wrong on the basis of only mentioning the $600 unit, because I was only talking about the premium units, it was the only PS3 unit relevant to the discussion. As for the rest, as seems to be the norm, also wrong. 1, you're making the assumption that all users will pay for online, when the majority will not, and 2, you're making the assumption that Playstation Online will be totally free, which given the language that Sony has used, it likely will not be. The system is open to each publisher maintaining and charging for it's own server farm, and you can expect many like EA or Ubi Soft to take advantage of that. And even if you don't want to believe this simple fact, you're still left with number 1, the logical fallacy of treating a consumer choice as a requirement for purchase. You are wrong, again, and at this point are no higher on the IQ totem pole than Topdawg and his much ridiculed sig. Taking the Xbox360's cost and then adding in enough optional things until it reaches the point where it's equal or greater than the PS3's high cost, and then saying "hey look, it's not a big difference after all!" is not only logically invalid, but indicative of a child-like thought process if you really can't see why it's incorrect to do this.
Or they want the HDD, as it provides BC, unlimited saves, Xbox live silver (which is free and does not factor into your already failed argument), the increased game quality that comes with cache writes, etc. There are so many factors at work here that you are ignoring, that I really don't even need to bring up that once again you are making the mistake of treating a (by the numbers) unpopular option as a necessity. Your argument is just one logical fallacy after another, and when you're told this, you simply redouble your efforts and make the same argument again, as though repeating it will somehow make it less based in half-truths and faulty assumptions. Now would be a great time to give that up.
LOLLERCOASTER TOPDAWG is a GOOF ILOVEYOU K???!!!!Axid said:
Shodan said:
