TheCardPlayer
Come play with me
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2005
- Messages
- 3,832
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
Topdawg said:please stop posting nonsense.![]()

Topdawg said:please stop posting nonsense.![]()
You start first.Topdawg said:please stop posting nonsense.![]()
Extromaniac said:1. I see that comment has gone straight over your head. Oh, I see what you mean now. Sorry, misunderstanding.. but yes, it did. But.. then again.. the Cube STILL came after PS2 and lowered the expected cost for a newer console. PS2 definitely isn't what it's cracked up to be.
2. What you consider barebones is Xbox Live Silver. Sony's "basic" online server is not the Silver account; it's the Gold account. You get basically everything that Sony's Live (in a better package) has with the Silver.. besides online gameplay. And.. if you can't afford $8 a month for a pretty kick ass Gold account, then I don't understand why you can pay $200 more for the PS3 in one inning.
3. I wouldn't be surprised of that, which is why I said so far. I haven't updated myself on this in a few days. And I assure you, there is many, many more where that came from. There are plenty for X360 as well? Gears of War, Blue Dragon, Mass Effect, Halo 3, etc.
4. If the Cell is a defect under the required standards, it will not make it into the console. Simple. It will be used for other devices. They have given you a theory and only a theory, which is in any consoles case. Yes, but this theory coming form the company who makes the Cell should alarm Sony. But they'd rather "push the console's specs". If PS3 ever has a problem with blowing Cell's "cores" then you're going to see most of the first gen recalled until they can figure out how to make the Cell work.
next paragraph: that's because you are limited to your sources of information. I could easily prove this outright to you. Blu-Ray is more expensive that DVD-9, face it. The format is expensive.. and that's only exemplified through Kaz Hirai's comments on "PS3's games being a little more than $60.. but at least not $100"I hope that clears some things up.![]()
WhatsHisFace said:You start first.
I've got an idea, never post "^lol" again.
TheCardPlayer said:
Spiderdogg said:2. I have many reason to give why I wouldn't pay for such a server, but I going to approach this from another perspective:
The casual consumer are the ones who will most likely not want to purchase such a thing. Do you know why this is? I'll tell you... They have bills; they are not as interested as hardcores like yourself is into such games, they are relying on another source of funds/income/family member, they don't know it exist.
3. That's not the point.
4. If the Cell is a defeat, it will not make it into the console. Simple
5. I see you wish to challenge me here. Ok.
"Insomniac plans on using blu-ray to the fullest, like including all languages like mentioned above on one worldwide disc (saving the company money), emphasizing not hearing the same voices (such as soldier dialog)/animations over and over, not down sampling audio, etc..."
Manny Calavera said:1) The ps2 was more expensive than an already dead system and a system that had no chance of competing and was coming out a year later? So you're saying that ps2 was more expensive than those two during a time where it had no competition? And that's your argument, ps2 was more expensive when gamers had no other option...and so ps3 being more expensive when gamers have two, superior options is not a problem? Seriously? That's all you came up with?
2) No, they really didn't. I don't know if you've ever been on xbox live, or seen it, read about it, or have any knowledge about it whatsoever, but it's painfully obvious that they are porting Xbox Live v1.0 over to the ps3, not the 360 version. And what exactly are they doing better than XBLive? Screwing the customer over? Sucking the fun out of gaming? Making it's customers wish they had went with the other guy?
3) Assassin's Creed? Heavenly Sword? So the PS3 has crappy looking future ports and junkware that not many people on the face of the earth who aren't desperate to come up with something ps3 has will care about. Good to know.
4) What exactly have developers said again? Any specific quotes, ideas, hinting, anything? Oh, you just made stuff up in lieu of facts, because the CELL is a failure and nigh-impossible to defend? That's fine, I guess. It's a very well known, publicized fact that the CELL has terrible yields. It's also well known that Steve Jobs, when offered the CELL for his Macs, looked down his nose at the chip and dismissed it. Just as well known as the fact that the CELL offers no performance upgrades over the 360 chip in gaming, as it's architecture is more custom tailored to be put into a server blade or to be put to work decoding HD footage than in any general computing, ie games. But you know, feel free to defend it if you'd like. It's always cute to see people try and talk about computer stuff when they know they really can't. I look forward to reading "the CELL has more jigahertz guys!"
5) Did you just imply that a hugely more expensive format who's chief advantages can not be used in game development thanks to the port port port business model we see in games today, is loved because it helps lower costs? Hahahahaha, wow
Here's a little secret Sony didn't put Blu-ray into PS3 to help them put out a better console. They put it in the machine so that there would be more Blu-Ray players on the market than HD-DVD players, helping their format to win. It's actually one of the worst things they could have done from a gaming perspective, though I have a feeling that you'll just ignore all that and continue to believe it was a stroke of genius.
6) I'm sure they did patent it "back in 99". And then they brought it out when Nintendo did. Because they were copying them, poorly. See how that works? No, of course you don't.
WhatsHisFace said:You start first.
I've got an idea, never post "^lol" again.
Spidey-Bat said:"lol" is the dumbest thing to post...EVER![]()
Most likely not. Even if I did post it, it doesn't mean it isn't the dumbest thing to post ever. I'm human, I can post dumb things too, but I don't do it as often as someone like you.Topdawg said:SO if i go through your posts i wont find ''lol''?
Not one where it's 100% of the post, like you.Topdawg said:SO if i go through your posts i wont find ''lol''?
Extromaniac said:2. So, the average consumer is going to be wowed enough by PS3 to slap down $200 more for it all at one time? Puh-lease.![]()
3. What is your point then?
4. It'll make it into the console the first gen, and if it is crap.. they will have to recall all of the first gen consoles, or at least most of them. And this will further delay PS3's true launching time. That will pretty much effectively kill alot of the consumer's wanting to buy the console.![]()
Which is my point.
5. Blu-Ray is in no way a worldwide disc? What the hell are you talking about?![]()
I will of course be showing how the rest of your post was incredibly dumb, but I wanted to get to this one first. You just said "PS3Online is better than Live 2.0, and I have no facts to back this up, but just trust me. I have "important reasons", like not wanting to admit that my console's online service is a bag of soggy ass". Hahaha, mind bogglingSpiderdogg said:2. Your sources are limited, I see. Again, Sony is not matching Silver or Live 1.0; they are matching 2.0. I know that sounds a bit disappointing and all since it was one of the very advantages the Xbox once had to Sony's console, but I assure you it's very true.
I really don't feel like providing a source due to important reasons, but just to let you know that this isn't just BS I'm spouting, I will do so.
I've concluded that Spiderdogg is the online manifestation of Sony's blind-ego for the PS3.Spiderdogg said:2. The average consumers wasn't even fortunate enough to get the last PlayStation when that was almost $400. Why would you expect that now? My words to you were:
"The casual consumer are the ones who will most likely not want to purchase such a thing. Do you know why this is? I'll tell you... They have bills; they are not as interested as hardcores like yourself is into such games, they are relying on another source of funds/income/family member, they don't know it exist."
In no way does that mean the casual consumer will purchase the console at launch. It only means that they will not be affected by any fees for online. That is it.
3. Refer back to the texts.
4. If there are any defects for the Cell, they will not make it into the console. Simple.
5. Tell that to developers.
WhatsHisFace said:I've concluded that Spiderdogg is the online manifestation of Sony's blind-ego for the PS3.
This is also the guy who said that the PS2 would have so much power unlocked by this time (thanks to the emotion engine) that Sony wouldn't need to make a PS3... because the PS2 was THAT good.
Spiderdogg said:2. The average consumers wasn't even fortunate enough to get the last PlayStation when that was almost $400. Why would you expect that now? My words to you were:
"The casual consumer are the ones who will most likely not want to purchase such a thing. Do you know why this is? I'll tell you... They have bills; they are not as interested as hardcores like yourself is into such games, they are relying on another source of funds/income/family member, they don't know it exist."
In no way does that mean the casual consumer will purchase the console at launch. It only means that they will not be affected by any fees for online. That is it. But how can they stand to even pay for the console after the first price drop ALL AT ONCE, I must stress to you... but, somehow, they can't stomach the money to pay $8 once a month for a Live service that is known to be one of the best out there.![]()
3. Refer back to the texts. Your "texts" didn't explain anything to me, besides the fact that you obviously have no handle on ANYTHING.
4. If there are any defects for the Cell, they will not make it into the console. Simple. Sony is so blindly intent on having Cell technology (and probably proving Steve Jobs wrong) at this point that they will probably release a glitchy version of the console at first just to push the tech. They did the same thing with the PS2, so why should I be surprised if they do it again?![]()
5. Tell that to developers. How about you cite some developers that don't have lips attached to Sony's ass? Better yet, I'll cite one for you. http://www.gamespy.com/articles/641/641662p2.html or http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1982533,00.asp
Just because my opinion differs I'm an idiot?WhatsHisFace said:I can't keep up with all the stupidity between Spiderdogg, Topdawg and Sloth7d.
Spiderdogg said:1. Um...the Game Cube? I must also add that your own quote has gone over your head.
2. Your sources are limited, I see. Again, Sony is not matching Silver or Live 1.0; they are matching 2.0. I know that sounds a bit disappointing and all since it was one of the very advantages the Xbox once had to Sony's console, but I assure you it's very true.
I really don't feel like providing a source due to important reasons, but just to let you know that this isn't just BS I'm spouting, I will do so.
3. These are not ports, and they never were. There is also more where those come from. If you wish to down-size them because they are exclusive, then that's your opinion and lost. I'm just making a point.
4. Your sources are limited. That explination is not very balanced at all. Infact, it's moot and even irrelevant in many cases.
5. No one's complaining about it, including developers, except for those like yourself who may have trouble affording it or lacking its importance, which is reasonable.
What's that supposed to mean?XwolverineX said:Wow, and I thought I was stupid.