Xenforo Cloud upgraded our forum to XenForo version 2.3.4. This update has created styling issues to our current templates.
Starting January 9th, site maintenance is ongoing until further notice, but please report any other issues you may experience so we can look into.
We apologize for the inconvenience.
Sony basically front loads their console at the cost of it being more expensive up front, Microsoft has a lower entry price and over-charges you for their addons and makes you pay 50 dollars a year to play online.
i just said that i didn't expect the production to get much larger in scale technically than gears of war or oblivion.
well the only reason why the chart lists hte 1st 4 months is bc all those systems have been out for at least 4 monthsYou cant really compare the 3 systems being that only 2 of them released at the same time. Who knows what the numbers would be had all 3 systems released last yr or this yr. I actually think MS came in a bit too early, but maybe they thought the yr up would prove beneficial in the long run.
Also, i dont think the first 4 months really mean shiit, i mean we all saw how great of a system the Gamecube was...
but microsoft will have a blu-ray add-on, so again that dosnt help ps3!! if anything it makes it worse for ps3
^ thats speculation, you cant say no, you have no idea how much the addon will be
it also loses casual gamers who don't care about blue ray or hddvd and are happy with dvds, as they dont want to pay the difference for something they dont care about or want to use = more money for micrsoft
yeah im the idiot
i dont think you understand that microsoft paying licensing fees to sony (if they have to, im not too sure they would myself, companies who create dvd players don't pay licencing to the creators of dvd, same with minidisks when they were around) dosn't directly help the ps3 as was claimed
and that wasnt a typo you attacked someone for challenging the info in the graph by saying it was clear it meant the 1st 4 months sales in the u.s when it was anything but clear
and how about you refrain from aggresive behaviour and name calling in a discussion with people
lol well me apologize for seeming aggressive and calling you an idiot. i didn't think you'd cry about it, i was just trying to get my point across at like 4 am here all hail 360 :heart:
There's no need to try and get your point across with name calling....try to play nicer in the future.
cry about it? god i hate people that just bring the i.q of a discussion down to 0 with petty name calling, grow up alreadylol well me apologize for seeming aggressive and calling you an idiot. i didn't think you'd cry about it, i was just trying to get my point across at like 4 am here all hail 360 :heart:
Until TV's that properly can handle blu ray and HDTV come down a lot in price this argument is kinda pointless unless pointed at the very rich or those that only spend their money on tech. Any regular joe (such as myself) can't afford the TV the game platiform and the games unless we sell our organs on the black market. If it ends up costing far over a grand to play a game at optimal levels then the freaking thing better give you a happy ending when you finish it.
Is blu ray still anti-porn or has that changed? Cause if it hasn't that might kill the whole format entirely.
well thats no secret. Thats what this whole drama surrounding BR for the past year or so has been about. Thats also why the news in this thread is a bit shocking if it actually does happenAbout MS getting a blu-ray add on, i doubt it will happen, as one of the developers of the technology is Sony.
http://www.blu-ray.com/info/
yea, but then you get none of teh benefits of having a Blu-Ray with your console. The advantage is more storage space.o.k but it still benefits 360 as people who dont want the bluray can get a games console at a decent price, and if they change their minds about bluray further down the line they also have the option to get it at a price which would probably equal the ps3