backtop


Print 111 comment(s) - last by KMJFNIGUY.. on Nov 23 at 2:32 PM

Sony CEO thanks Wii shortages for PS3 sales boost

Things may finally be turning around for Sony, or perhaps for the consumers, depending on perspective. Following the introduction of the 40GB PlayStation 3, which effectively dropped the price of the console by $100 down to $399, sales of the platform have more than doubled.

Sony Corp. CEO Howard Stringer expressed his relief, saying to the AP, "It's the breakthrough we've been anticipating. We've been holding our breath."

According to the newswire, Sony sold between 30,000 and 40,000 consoles per week prior to the price drop of the 80GB model and introduction of the 40GB unit. On the week of the new pricing, sales jumped to 75,000. On the next week, Sony sold an even better 100,000 consoles.

"Obviously, we've taken so much heat over the year on PS3," Stringer added. "Finally, the turning point has been passed."

While the Wii is still the undisputed leading seller, Stringer believes that the surge in PS3 sales owes something to Nintendo's inability to supply the demand, leading some consumers to view Sony's console as the alternative. "It's a little fortuitous that the Wii is running out of hardware," Stringer said.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

There ARE GAMES people
By michal1980 on 11/16/2007 1:25:58 PM , Rating: 2
sj420
"There aren't any games for it, if they actually had a library of say 50 games, with at least 30-35 being good games"

Can you back that up? or are you just blind. What console right now has 30-50 Good games?

xbox 360: bioshock, halo 3, gears of war. out of which both bioshock and gears you can play on the PC.

wii: zelda, mario galaxy. Good exclusives no where else.

ps3: Folklore. Ratch and Clank. Uncharted, Resitance fall of man. Warhawk. etc.

So how many more people are going to say the ps3 has no games? have you even LOOKED?

as for people buying the ps3 to play blu-rays... Didn't we just have a whole huge dailytech post saying that PS3 owners ARE NOT buying blu-ray movies. Can't have it both ways... But then again. Dailytech is M$ & toshibia's play ground, and anyone with a thoguht different then that company line is voted down.

Unless you've been blind. The ps3 has games. Includeing very good to excellent titles. With more on the way.

Metal Gear next year. Finial Fantasy Next year, Gran Turismo Next year.

What games are you looking for that it does not have?




RE: There ARE GAMES people
By scrillator on 11/16/2007 1:52:58 PM , Rating: 4
I totally agree. I always read on here about people saying there are no games for PS3 and wonder if they even look. Sure, there aren't as many PS3 exclusive games out there than there are Xbox exclusives, but there are great games none the less. Ninja Gaiden Sigma was amazing. Ratchet and Clank was great as well.

I can't wait for the new Indiana Jones and Star Wars: The Force Unleashed games to come out.


RE: There ARE GAMES people
By FITCamaro on 11/16/2007 3:06:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I can't wait for the new Indiana Jones and Star Wars: The Force Unleashed games to come out.


Same. But I'll be playing them on my 360. ;)


RE: There ARE GAMES people
By BansheeX on 11/16/2007 6:44:37 PM , Rating: 2
The 360 actually lacks true exclusives. Gears of War and BioShock are both on the PC (BioShock will likely come out on the PS3 in 2008 anyway). Halo 3 and Mass Effect are timed exclusives that will also be likely be released on the PC in the future. The 360's true exclusives are stuff like Dead Rising and Kameo. In comparison, the PS3 has better true exclusives with Uncharted, Ratchet, Folklore, and MGS. Those games will probably never see the light of day on another platform.


RE: There ARE GAMES people
By RMSe17 on 11/18/2007 10:15:42 AM , Rating: 3
Exclusive games are bad for the consumer and for the developer of the game. Think about it! :)


RE: There ARE GAMES people
By Bioniccrackmonk on 11/16/2007 2:06:43 PM , Rating: 2
Even though I completely agree with you about the PS3 having great games to play now, I have to point out one thing. When you refer to Microsoft as " M$ ", you only make yourself look like a tool. Other then that though, you are 100% right.


RE: There ARE GAMES people
By Bioniccrackmonk on 11/16/2007 2:13:58 PM , Rating: 1
Scrillator and Michael, we are about to be rated down faster then a gentlemans club next a church for talking positively about the PS3. Seems this website has a lot of 360 fanboys on it that do nothing but regurgitate the same crap over and over again. Excuse me while I get my galoshes to wade through all the feces.


RE: There ARE GAMES people
By inperfectdarkness on 11/16/2007 2:41:26 PM , Rating: 5
anyone who thinks the ps3 and the wii are sharing the same market is badly mistaken.

anyone who thinks it's nintendo's fault they were unable to anticipate such high demand for their system is badly mistaken.

anyone who thinks nintendo is deliberately keeping production low to boost demand is even more badly mistaken.

you want proof nintendo isn't sharing the market? i had my in-laws over 2 weeks ago. my mother-in law couldn't give two cents about wanting a ps3 or a 360. but she was up till 2am playing my wii. it's an entirely different market. and i'm still confused why anyone would be paying $400 for a 40 gig gaming system that's not backward compatible.


RE: There ARE GAMES people
By mles1551 on 11/16/2007 3:14:46 PM , Rating: 3
Great points.

I don't have a use for BC. My PS3 is a launch system with "full" BC, but has never played a PS2 game.

BC depends on genre. The only genre that doesn't have a good next generation representative is the RPG. FF fans will play the PS2 FF games, while I'm a shooter/racing fan and see no games worth playing.

For me why would I play Battlefield 2, COD, MOH, or Socom when I can play Resistance, COD4, Army of Two, or RB6V?

So they are trying to give the illusion of choice on BC or not. Non BC systems are cheaper b/c they want to push the customer to make the transition to the PS3 and PS3 only. If you still have the PS2 habit then it's going to cost you an additional 100 bucks.


RE: There ARE GAMES people
By BansheeX on 11/16/07, Rating: -1
RE: There ARE GAMES people
By afkrotch on 11/17/2007 8:05:37 AM , Rating: 3
Anyone who thinks the PS3 and Wii aren't sharing the same market is badly mistaken. Both systems cater to the exact same audiences.

Here's some Wii games, that I'm sure you're mother-in-law wouldn't play. Farcry, Splinter Cell: Double Agent, Manhunt 2, Resident Evil 4, NFS: Carbon, Mortal Kombat, Medal of Honor, Call of Duty, etc.

It has many of the same games that both the PS3 and Xbox 360 have. Both the PS3 and 360 also have younger audience games or family games.


RE: There ARE GAMES people
By PrezWeezy on 11/20/2007 9:18:46 PM , Rating: 3
Yes but name one person who would buy the Wii for those games. The Wii has crappy graphics and a stupid playing system...for those games. Don't get me wrong I think the Wii is great and there is a ton of awesome stuff to go with it. But if you are playing NFS, MoD, or CoD on the Wii you just don't have another system to play it on. It's just not that type of system. Those games only sorta play well on it. In my opinion that is.

I'd like to say I'm in no way a "Wii hater" but the reality is the PS3 and the Xbox360 play those types of games far better. And Ma-in-law would never buy those games, nor buy the system to play them with. Not to mention the PS3 and 360 are far more expensive if all you want is family type games. Just because there is some cross over does not mean that they either one will do both jobs as well as the other. The Wii is for family/casual gaming. The PS3/360 are for more in depth to serious games...or people who can't decide what to do with an extra $500.


RE: There ARE GAMES people
By Alpha4 on 11/20/2007 5:11:14 PM , Rating: 3
Has any word been mentioned of Twisted Metal? ><
I can't google it right now.


RE: There ARE GAMES people
By jconan on 11/21/2007 8:06:42 PM , Rating: 2
The problem is that a lot of people generalize without doing any research similar to people who like to cry wolf without any solid substantiation to their allegations. That's one of the main problems with today's society. There's plenty of games for the PS3 just pick one or rent one that floats your gaming palette and that goes for 360 thats been around longer.


For movies, games, or both?
By Dread75 on 11/16/07, Rating: 0
RE: For movies, games, or both?
By xfrgtr on 11/16/07, Rating: 0
RE: For movies, games, or both?
By Locutus465 on 11/16/2007 3:01:10 PM , Rating: 3
why do people go on about Assassin's creed as if you can't buy it for x-box? And as an x-box owner I'd say it's great that sony is finally selling consoles, either way it keeps high def game development from slipping as a prioity... should note that I own and love the Wii, I just don't want to the to become such a market priority that you see a decreas in graphics quality on my x-box (or for those that like PS3, there as well).


RE: For movies, games, or both?
By Murst on 11/16/2007 3:09:01 PM , Rating: 2
I guess its due to Sony sponsoring the ads for Ubi. If I had a 360, I'd probably get AC for the 360 instead of the PS3, since framerates are supposed to be better (I've noticed that when I climb to the viewpoints in Jerusalem, there is a slight slowdown in framerate on the PS3).

Well.. I'd probably have to research it more. According to the IGN review of AC, loading between zones supposedly takes up to 5 minutes (the game was reviewed on the 360 I believe). The longest I've had to wait on the PS3 is like 1 minute. So I guess I'd have to research this some more if I had both consoles.


RE: For movies, games, or both?
By Locutus465 on 11/16/2007 5:21:30 PM , Rating: 2
Having looked at the side by side of the PS3 trailer v. x-box, my vote would be x-box... colors looked washed out in the PS3 version for this game, see the DT game update for today if you haven't see the side by side


RE: For movies, games, or both?
By euclidean on 11/19/2007 11:47:31 AM , Rating: 2
side by side doesn't work for a game that was ported...like most. but we all know the reasons for that ;).

From the other DT article, the PS3 is looking like a good buy right now. HD ftw :D


RE: For movies, games, or both?
By BansheeX on 11/16/2007 11:55:55 PM , Rating: 1
why do people go on about Assassin's creed as if you can't buy it for x-box?

He wasn't. He simply said he can't wait to play it. You're so tuned in to your combative fanboy mindset that you you took the bait and misread it as a boast about an exclusive that you didn't have. You inserted all of that meaning yourself.


RE: For movies, games, or both?
By SavagePotato on 11/17/2007 12:27:24 AM , Rating: 2
I am personaly a little tired of seeing the fact that a game is available on both consoles as some kind of reason to claim it cannot be considered a good game for the ps3.

Right now there are so many games coming out for the ps3 I'd like to try I cant afford to buy them all. I already bought Ratchet and clank, and conan, assasins creed is on the way. Id love to get uncharted, guitar hero3, call of duty 4, unreal tournament 3, warhawk, folklore. That doesn't even get into next years titles like force unleashed, metal gear solid, grand theft auto.

Thats alot of money to drop on good games, and the ps3 is shaping up to be pretty good, personaly I think it's looking alot better games wise than the 360 did on it's first aniversary.


RE: For movies, games, or both?
By afkrotch on 11/17/2007 7:50:22 AM , Rating: 2
I'd have to say it's pretty equal game wise. Now, for me, the PS3 is shaping out better, simply cause it has more games that I enjoy. I like FPS games, but I play them on PC. I hate sports games. Racing games are fun, but I'm sick of the "simulation" racing games.

I'm waiting for WRC for PS3, whenever that comes out. Gundam: Operation Troy looks to be good on Xbox 360, even if it is an FPS. Hope they fix the framerate issues on that game.


RE: For movies, games, or both?
By RMSe17 on 11/18/2007 10:11:00 AM , Rating: 2
I can't wait to play it either, but it's not out for my system yet. Which incidentally happens to be better than PS3 and XBOX360! (It does cost more, but you get what you payed for)

So for now, I will go play Crysis, while everyone else can argue about how their console is better than some other console. :p


RE: For movies, games, or both?
By SavagePotato on 11/19/2007 9:34:44 AM , Rating: 2
Ah but I have a PC too.

So I can argue about how good the games are for my PS3 and play Crysis and call of duty 4 on my pc as well.


RE: For movies, games, or both?
By afkrotch on 11/17/2007 7:42:26 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The sales increase may just be people buying it as the cheapest BD player available. They could probably remove all ability to play games and it would see better sales, as a BD player.

The PS3 is hard to factor into statistics because you don't know if one sells for games only, movies only, or both.


Why do ppl still use this arguement? Here's an idea, look on the net. You can get Blu-ray players for around the $400 mark and it has been such months ago.


Executive Summary ~
By kileil on 11/16/2007 1:17:04 PM , Rating: 4
Executive version of this thread:

PS3humper420
Teh PS3 is technologically superior and has new uber-nano processor traces made from unicorns and carbon nanopipes! *wipes away spittle*
xboxes just overheat and don't have TealBeam's obviously massive storage abilities. BZZZZT

xbox360lover411
Dude Halo is liek t3h best game ever and that alone makes xbox360 teh win!
Sony is t3h lose with their flaming laptop batteries. HD discs sell more than blue ray. Pony couldn't sell a bucket of water to a man on fire.
and one time, in 1984, I bought a tape walkman and it broke Rowr Rowr Rowr

Ok, can we have the next thread now?




RE: Executive Summary ~
By FITCamaro on 11/16/2007 1:53:29 PM , Rating: 2
ROFL please give this a 6.


RE: Executive Summary ~
By jak3676 on 11/16/2007 3:13:20 PM , Rating: 2
+1


RE: Executive Summary ~
By Darkskypoet on 11/16/2007 6:01:06 PM , Rating: 2
+1
couldn't vote any other way...


RE: Executive Summary ~
By Spivonious on 11/16/2007 8:53:45 PM , Rating: 2
LMFAO.

Now I don't have to read the comments. :D


Image that
By AlexWade on 11/16/2007 4:04:07 PM , Rating: 3
Something that cost less sells more. Who would have ever thought that? Are you listening MPAA and RIAA? Lower cost = more sales = less pirates. But to do that, it would require you to think rationally.

(And this is what the HD DVD camp has been preaching too.)




RE: Image that
By afkrotch on 11/17/2007 8:35:10 AM , Rating: 2
Ya, that equation doesn't always work out. I mean, look at the iPod. It has less features than other mp3 players, costs more, yet sells more. Your equation leaves out the stupidity of customers.


Typo
By boogle on 11/16/2007 12:52:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
While the Wii is still the undisputed leading seller, Stringer believes that the surge in PS3 sales owes something to Nintendo's in ability to supply the demand, leading some consumers to view Sony's console as the alternative.


I think you mean inability ;)




RE: Typo
By Marcus Yam on 11/16/2007 1:58:14 PM , Rating: 2
Typo indeed. Thanks, and fixed.


100,000 consoles or 100,000 PS3!
By Takeoff250 on 11/16/2007 1:08:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
On the next week, Sony sold an even better 100,000 consoles.


100,000 consoles or 100,000 PS3? I'm betting he included ps2 sales... LOL




By Spotacus on 11/16/2007 1:48:42 PM , Rating: 2
100,000 consoles including PS2 sales:

quote:
The price cut and new model helped Sony increase sales of all consoles including the older PlayStation 2 to 100,000 units in the week ended Nov. 11, spokeswoman Kimberly Otzman said in an e-mail.


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive...

Towards the bottom of that article.

Plus if the 75,000 during the week of October 29 was for just the PS3 and they were selling 30 to 40k the weeks before: 35 + 35 + 35 + 75 = 180,000 for the October NPD period, which ran from Oct. 7 to Nov. 3. And since NPD reported 121k ...


Who sold?
By SocrPlyr on 11/16/2007 12:54:06 PM , Rating: 2
Was that Sony sold or was that retailers sold?
I don't doubt there was an increase, but of course Sony is going to sell a lot more at first of a product that isn't on shelves yet (it needs to populate the shelves). I am just curious about where this figure comes from. Is it effectively Sony shipped that many or is it that they were actually sold in stores. Oh don't we all just love statistics.

Josh




By slatr on 11/16/2007 3:35:42 PM , Rating: 2
I had a choice of 5 free games to pick from. I should have got Resistance:FOTM. I could kick the clerk in the butt for telling me that the Lair was a good game.

Ah well, I took it to Gamestop and traded it in on Ratchet and Clank.

Sony thinks the ps3 is hot now, watch it when it hits 299.




By crystal clear on 11/17/2007 8:46:48 AM , Rating: 2
It appears Sonys is fighting two wars with one weapon-

Game Consoles & the Formats(HD DVD/B.R.) with its PS3.

More units in the hands of consumers means better Blu-ray sales and more developer support, both things that could have a cascade effect for Sony's business.

While the HDMI-equipped Xbox 360 Premium system is still $50 less expensive than Sony's 40GB option, the Blu-ray drive more than makes up for the small difference in price for some users. With the high-definition format wars still being fought—much to Sony's chagrin—every system Sony is able to sell on the power of its gaming lineup is another Blu-ray player in the home of a consumer who may then begin buying Blu-ray movies. While the Xbox 360 offers an HD DVD drive as an $180 option, the built-in nature of Sony's Blu-ray drive allows developers more space for their games, and it also means that consumers can buy Blu-ray movies well as games. "It puts us vastly ahead of where the other format is going to be in terms of an installed base in people's homes by the end of this holiday season," Andrew House, Sony's chief marketing officer, told the AP.



http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071115-sony...




By emptypockets on 11/18/2007 1:05:04 PM , Rating: 2
The real question is: Did people buy the "good" PS3 60GB-version or the "gimped" PS3 40GB-version?

I'm not sure what the situation is right now in North America but I've got a feeling that in Europe most people still buy the 499 EUR PS3 with 60GB instead of the stripped 40GB model.

Nonetheless Sony is back in the race and they have a lot to do before they can match what Nintendo and Microsoft (the more direct competitor) have sold already.

Now Sony that the price is no more the biggest argument against PS3 they will have to secure spectacular exclusive games for the system - or else this surge in sales will not continue in 2008.




PS3 still to high Sony
By marco916 on 11/20/2007 12:16:31 PM , Rating: 2
Don't know about the rest of the world, but in the U.S the gas prices are high, economy is sinking, house values are dropping. Sony can put hot looking Japanese babes all they want with the PS3, until they drop the price to $299 I'm not budging on the PS3, I'm perfectly fine with my PS2, more then enough games still available, Happy with Wii, and happy with my PC Games.




I bought my PS3 to play games.....
By KMJFNIGUY on 11/23/2007 2:32:39 PM , Rating: 2
I have had an 360 for two years now and my PS3 for about one full year. I do have a samsung CRT HDTV 1080i 37"(talking to the wife to upgrade). I have my PS3 hook up thru DVI-HDMI. I have only watch 2 bluray movies for my PS3 Talladega Nights when I have bought a year ago and 300 which I just watch last night. I have made my $600.00 investemnt to play games and be part of cutting edge tech.. And I am happy with the current content of the PS3. Uncharted, ROC, HS, Folklore, COD4, Warhawk. PS3 has enormus potentional if you play any of the current PS3 exclusives you can see the have bad ass games. Better that my 360 first year line up. One bad thing about my PS3 I have not bought a game so far. I will be buying Uncharted, Folklore,COD4 and Unreal III. I have rent HS, ROC, COD4 and played the demo for Folklore and Uncharted. The PS3 is a great peice of Tech. I am just happy I have a PS3 and a 360 and I can experience next gen gaming. Also back to watching movies on my PS3 I watch more movies on my 360 than I do on my PS3. I used my 360 as my DVD player and an media extender.........




I bought a PS3
By psychotix11 on 11/16/2007 4:42:27 PM , Rating: 1
It was a dumb decision. When I bought it there were still a few exclusives I wanted down the road, but I pretty much bought it because it was a cheap blu-ray player. I got one game with it, Resistance, that I played for all of 2 hours.

So I pretty much bought an $600 buck blu-ray player that I got a grand total of 2 hours gaming from!

I'm not sure why people say that the Wii is a different market, it's not. All my friends on Wii's and a lot of them 360's, I'm the only sucker who bought a PS3. They own HD TV's and play the Wii on the TV.

I didn't want a Wii, I bought into the "it's not a hardcore system" crap till I played one. Well since then I bought a Wii and multiple games and that's what I've been playing.




?
By smaddox on 11/16/07, Rating: 0
Triple sales of PS3... thats what...
By Marlin1975 on 11/16/07, Rating: -1
RE: Triple sales of PS3... thats what...
By Baked on 11/16/07, Rating: 0
By FITCamaro on 11/16/2007 1:30:03 PM , Rating: 1
I think his point was along the lines of "People don't buy it to play games at all." since its library of good games is extremely small.


RE: Triple sales of PS3... thats what...
By BPB on 11/16/2007 1:47:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Xbox360 and Wii are pure gaming platforms
Not true! We use our 360 as a Media Center extender all the time. I got tired of filling up my DVR's hard drive, so now I use my PC via the 360. We are quite content with it, especially when you throw in the fact we have the Logitech Harmony for Xbox 360. Man, we love the setup. Once I get my new Tivo Series 3, which will save shows to the PC, it'll only get better. Throw in the HD-DVD, which is connected to my PC, not 360, and I think you can say our 360 is not a pure gaming platform, or ffor gaming only.

Buy the way, got my Tivo from OceCall, open box. It'll cost $250 after rebate. It's $368 after rebate at Amazon right now.
http://www.amazon.com/TiVo-TCD648250B-Series3-Digi...


By Murst on 11/16/2007 3:33:02 PM , Rating: 2
You've got a pretty neat setup ;)


By Gibby82 on 11/20/2007 3:28:11 AM , Rating: 2
Did you get it to play other formats? (AVI, DIVX)

When I tried this it was WMV or nothing.


RE: Triple sales of PS3... thats what...
By Murst on 11/16/2007 1:32:38 PM , Rating: 3
Obviously, you're just being stupid.

FYI, last weeks worldwide sales according to vgchartz:

WII: 309,638
360: 234,832
PS3: 199,430

The XBox continues to dominate the PS3 in the US, while the PS3 is outselling it in the rest of the world. If the % increase can be used as any indication for future trends, the PS3 will begin outselling the XBox in the coming weeks. However, that is a big "if" and I'm not so sure this will happen, but who knows.


By Bioniccrackmonk on 11/16/2007 1:40:28 PM , Rating: 1
Don't pick on Marlin1975 just because he can't count past 18.

Even though my comment in itself is stupid and will probably be rated down, Marlin1975's comment was just as dumb but there seems to be an overwhelming number of people on here who want the PS3 to fail, so he will probably be rated up.


By OddTSi on 11/16/2007 8:23:22 PM , Rating: 1
I'm not sure who is stupider, the OP for his flamebait comment or you for quoting vgchartz.


Still no games to play
By GhandiInstinct on 11/16/07, Rating: -1
RE: Still no games to play
By imaheadcase on 11/16/2007 1:13:24 PM , Rating: 2
The walmart i work for sold out of the new 40gig PS3 within the first week. Granted it was only 4 but 4 80gig ones would set for 6months before.

You forget most people truly are buying them for the blu-ray player and free movies.

PS: If you want the 80gig PS3 you have to ask, most walmarts are keeping them in back unless someone asks because of shelf space.


RE: Still no games to play
By michal1980 on 11/16/07, Rating: -1
RE: Still no games to play
By Murst on 11/16/2007 1:55:36 PM , Rating: 2
I'm pretty sure the attach rate for CoD4 is higher on the PS3 than on the 360. That would certainly indicate that people are in fact buying the PS3 for games (it doesn't exclude the possiblility of people buying it for both games and movies, though).


RE: Still no games to play
By MADAOO7 on 11/16/2007 2:35:49 PM , Rating: 2
or you can say CoD4 is one of the few games worth playing on PS3, and therefore they are experiencing higher sales because of the lack of competition. It's all how you word it.....=)


RE: Still no games to play
By Murst on 11/16/2007 2:54:57 PM , Rating: 2
I don't see how that is relevant to the argument that people aren't buying PS3s to play games.

If attach rates are equal or better on a PS3 and 360, it would indicate that an equal or greater percentage of people who buy a PS3 buy it for games, when compared to the 360.

Lack of competition between game developers has nothing to do with the percentage of people who buy the PS3 for movies vs games. All it means is that there is less developers.


RE: Still no games to play
By FITCamaro on 11/16/2007 3:03:49 PM , Rating: 2
What exactly is your basis for this statement?


RE: Still no games to play
By Locutus465 on 11/16/2007 3:05:54 PM , Rating: 2
That's what I'm curious about... Particularly with more x-boxs in the market (despite any sales increase) than PS3's.


RE: Still no games to play
By FITCamaro on 11/16/2007 3:08:26 PM , Rating: 2
And the fact that a lot of people probably bought it on the PC considering its a) cheaper, b) the graphics are even better, and c) the multiplayer is still there.


RE: Still no games to play
By Murst on 11/16/2007 3:25:59 PM , Rating: 2
I haven't seen any evidence that the PC version of CoD4 negatively affected the XBox sales more than PS3 sales. I'm guessing it took a similar chunk (in terms of percentages) from each console.


RE: Still no games to play
By FITCamaro on 11/16/2007 5:24:13 PM , Rating: 2
My point is that there isn't any evidence of anything. You're guessing.


RE: Still no games to play
By Murst on 11/16/2007 5:59:11 PM , Rating: 2
Umm... you're the one who made the claim that PC versions are affecting console sales, with nothing to back that up (which is what I pointed out).

Unless you have some evidence that suggests otherwise, it should be normal to assume that sales are affected equally.


RE: Still no games to play
By Murst on 11/16/2007 3:20:45 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
What exactly is your basis for this statement?

The attach rate of a game to the console would be the ratio of the number of games sold when compared to the number of consoles out there.

So, there are ~8.47 million 360 consoles sold in the US, and about 507k CoD4 games were sold last week in the US.

There are about 2.32 million PS3 consoles sold in the US, and about 179k CoD4 games were sold last week in the US.

Therefore, the attach rate of the CoD4 version for the XBox would be about 6%, while the attach rate for the PS3 would be about 7.7%.

These numbers come from vgchartz.


RE: Still no games to play
By MADAOO7 on 11/16/2007 9:53:03 PM , Rating: 2
Again, you are still quoting fact that is irrelevant and has nothing to do with console sales. The fact that a greater percentage bought COD4 on PS3 could be attributed to demographics or the lack of better choices in games.


RE: Still no games to play
By MaulBall789 on 11/16/2007 3:55:28 PM , Rating: 2
Dude, get over it. Some people really are watching bluray movies on their PS3. ESPECIALLY since these new ones have no backwards compatibility and there aren't enough good PS3 games to play. Most people don't fork over $400 for a doorstop. They are renting blurays from Blockbuster. Case closed. Good day to you.


RE: Still no games to play
By MADAOO7 on 11/16/2007 9:56:42 PM , Rating: 1
O burn! You really got'em with your "good day to you"....lol. If only all the points on dailytech could be as astute as yours.....DUDE! (sarcasm)


RE: Still no games to play
By deeznuts on 11/16/2007 2:13:48 PM , Rating: 2
I bet you the same people who say most people are buying the PS3 for movies when discussing games, are the same people who say most people are not buying the PS3 for movies, when discussing HD DVD vs. Blu-Ray.

A common statistic thrown around is, 60% of PS3 owners don't even know about the blu-ray capability of their machine. How is that most people are buying it for movies?

How about we all agree that most people are buying for games, a lot are buying it for both, and a few just for movies?


RE: Still no games to play
By Pandamon on 11/16/2007 3:27:12 PM , Rating: 2
I confess I purchased a PS3 just to watch HD movies, after reading rave reviews on its performance as a movie player. The PS3's ability to receive firmware updates is a great feature other Bluray players didn't have at the time.
I got 6 free Bluray DVD's, but the one I really wanted I purchased separately:
the BBC's epic "Planet Earth, Complete Collection".

I'm looking forward to wireless streaming DivX movies from my PC, to the PS3 and on to my plasma.

Maybe some day I will buy a game for the PS3.


RE: Still no games to play
By buddry on 11/16/2007 5:46:02 PM , Rating: 2
My brother just bought a PS3 for movies. He will get some games for it eventually, but who wants to pay $60 for a game?


RE: Still no games to play
By Murst on 11/16/2007 6:08:45 PM , Rating: 2
Right.. cause HD movies are a much better when it comes to entertainment value for $ spent...

It just seems like your brother isn't into games, and likes movies a lot.


RE: Still no games to play
By BansheeX on 11/16/2007 6:56:13 PM , Rating: 1
Last time I checked, MSRP for a new 360 game was $60 as well. Also, when you save $250 in netplay costs over a five year span of ownership since PS3 netplay is free, you tend to have more money for actual games.


RE: Still no games to play
By Murst on 11/16/2007 1:24:38 PM , Rating: 3
AC sucks? Have you even played the game?

AC is an amazing game. Maybe if you're into FPS and FPS only, yeah, then I can see why you wouldn't be into it, but I'd say that (having played AC through 5 "main" assassinations so far) it is the best game I've played all year, surpassing M3P:C and R&C.

Different people do have different tastes, although I just can't see how you could say a game sucks because you don't enjoy playing those types of games.

My copy of Mario Galaxy hasn't even been opened yet cause I'm having such a fun time playing AC. Hopefully I'll finish AC in the next few days because Rockband is out early next week, and I'll at least want a feel for Galaxy.

There's so many good games right now, and so little time =/


RE: Still no games to play
By FITCamaro on 11/16/07, Rating: 0
RE: Still no games to play
By Murst on 11/16/2007 1:37:40 PM , Rating: 2
I certainly wouldn't say I have all that time and that much money. Some people get a new car every other year. I drive a 93 camry and a 03 civic. I'd rather play games than show off in a new BMW or Lexus.


RE: Still no games to play
By mmntech on 11/16/07, Rating: 0
RE: Still no games to play
By deeznuts on 11/16/2007 2:18:49 PM , Rating: 2
Since you put quotes around "blockbuster" I'm assuming you were joking, but sonic a blockbuster?

There are great games for the PS3. This exclusive nonsense is limited to the internet. There are ton of good games to be played, and exclusives too if you must. Resistance was a great launch title. You had VF5 if that was your cup of tea (not mine). Motorstorm was fun. Lair was ass, Heavenly sword is a good game albeit short. R&C and Uncharted are good apparently. And much more.


RE: Still no games to play
By Murst on 11/16/2007 3:03:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You've obviously never driven a Lexus.

Although there certainly are many cars that I'd like to drive that I haven't driven, like Ferraris and such, I've driven many models of Lexuses, BMWs, and other "luxury" cars. However, driving to me is for getting from place to place, it is not entertainment. I'd rather play games for that (although reaching ~240km/hr on the autobahn in my mother's BMW was fun - maybe if I lived in Germany I'd have a different view of cars).

In any case, I don't see what this has to do w/ consoles ;)


RE: Still no games to play
By deeznuts on 11/16/2007 2:15:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I wish I had as much time as you to play games. And as much money to buy them all.
I don't have the time either, but I have the money.

So I gamefly. No remorse when I don't have time to play a game. $20/month.


RE: Still no games to play
By Bioniccrackmonk on 11/16/2007 1:37:30 PM , Rating: 5
There are plenty of games to play, just because you don't like it doesn't mean anyone else will. General comments like this lead nowhere and are just plain stupid.


RE: Still no games to play
By GhandiInstinct on 11/16/07, Rating: 0
RE: Still no games to play
By Murst on 11/16/2007 5:32:04 PM , Rating: 2
Games on the PS3 that I've played and enjoyed (and consider great games)

Marvel UA
Heavenly Sword
Ratchet & Clank
Assassins Creed

Other games that I've heard are pretty good but have not played yet:

Resistance
Warhawk
Guitar Hero 3
Call of Duty 4

Sorry, I meant to list only 5, but I didn't feel leaving out other good games would have been appropriate.


RE: Still no games to play
By Bioniccrackmonk on 11/16/2007 5:32:36 PM , Rating: 2
5 games I enjoy playing on my PS3:

Resistance
COD4
Assasins Creed
Ratchet and Clank
Warhawk

I count 5 and that doesnt include the old arcade games I have from the PSN that I downloaded.


RE: Still no games to play
By Bioniccrackmonk on 11/16/2007 5:33:17 PM , Rating: 2
Damn, wish there was an edit button. Meant to say these are the 5 I like to play, there are more games out but different people have different tastes.


RE: Still no games to play
By CRimer76 on 11/16/2007 6:00:35 PM , Rating: 2
I'll bite.

5 games I enjoy playing on my PS3:

1. CoD4
2. Ratchet and Clank
3. Uncharted
4. Resistance
5. Heavenly Sword
6. Guitar Hero 3
7. Assassin's Creed
8. GT5 Demo

Oh that was 8, my bad.


RE: Still no games to play
By Murst on 11/16/2007 6:05:01 PM , Rating: 2
I'm surprised someone hasn't complained that Oblivion or Ninja Gaiden isn't included in any of these lists :)


RE: Still no games to play
By GhandiInstinct on 11/16/2007 6:18:33 PM , Rating: 1
AC?

Guys, it's getting terrible reviews internet wide.

All of my friends that bought it, returned it.

You're enjoying it?

Let's list games that were rated high unanimously.

COD4 and R & C are the worthy ones. That's 2.

Warhawk and Resistence are not "great" games. Or games I'd spend $60 on compared to the PC selection out now.


RE: Still no games to play
By rdeegvainl on 11/18/2007 4:30:53 AM , Rating: 2
I'll bite this flame bait. I will redirect you to a penny arcade article about this.

http://www.penny-arcade.com/2007/11/14

Take a look at what they have to say about the review process these guys have to go through. It makes you have to take reviews with a pound of salt(though you should have anyway). AC wasn't a game meant to be made for a reviewers delight. Guys who are forced to finish a game and give it a number before a deadline are not really to be trusted when I make my opinion of a game. I play it for fun, they play it cause they have to.

And games don't have to be ones you'd like to be great.
OH SNAP!!! I think I just said people can have their own opinion, and not be sheep, hope I'm not targeted for re-education


give it 6 months
By sj420 on 11/16/07, Rating: -1
RE: give it 6 months
By FITCamaro on 11/16/2007 1:12:09 PM , Rating: 2
Sony doesn't make Final Fantasy. And Final Fantasy XI is an online game with an excellent story. XII's story was good too and the first single player Final Fantasy game I ever played (I don't like random encounter RPGs).

If you feel though Final Fantasy series isn't as good as it used to be, don't blame Sony.

Anyway, concerning the topic at hand, with the 40GB model at $399, its finally at a price point where I'll consider one. And with the announcement that Divx support is coming, depending on what Microsoft allows, that might tip the scales for me to get one. I want to play MGS4 as bad as anyone, but I'm not buying the console solely for that. Final Fantasy XIII would be nice too, but again, I wouldn't have spent $700 (when its all said and done) to play it.


RE: give it 6 months
By Bioniccrackmonk on 11/16/2007 1:56:19 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
They aren't trying to make the gamer happy anymore, they are just trying to make money like any other company now.


I am not sure what to say. After reading your long, drawn out rant about Sony, this sentence threw me for a loop. I noticed you didn't mention anything about MS rushing their system out to be the first, just to have it come back and bite them in the ass with a 33% failure rate that was reported on this very site. If Sony rushed theirs out they could have a larger library as well, but I am thankful of them for creating a product that I don't have to ship back for repairs after paying a decent chunk of money on. And yes, I did have to send my 360 in for repairs, even though it was free, it is still BS.

Also, Final Fantasy is a product of a little company known as Square-Enix, not Sony. If you don't like the way they took the game series, blame the right people, not someone who is convienent. The next time you have written diarrhea on here, please try to keep it in line just a little.


RE: give it 6 months
By sj420 on 11/16/07, Rating: 0
RE: give it 6 months
By Murst on 11/16/2007 6:01:09 PM , Rating: 2
Its funny seeing people continue to insist it is a user error after it has been pretty much established as a design flaw.

I'm happy for you that you don't have issues with your 360. There are a lot of other people who are not so lucky.


RE: give it 6 months
By Darkskypoet on 11/16/2007 6:06:27 PM , Rating: 1
Yes, because we should all have to buy a laptop cooler for a console. I mean hell what were any of the many people I know with the RROD issue thinking when they just set it up next to all their other consoles and trusted it would work...

You sir should go and get laid.


RE: give it 6 months
By BansheeX on 11/16/2007 7:04:53 PM , Rating: 1
Is irrational Sony hate the next KKK or something? Where is this stuff coming from? Yeah, and I'll bet McDonald's doesn't want to feed its customers, either. Time for you to give up video games period and start trying harder in school.


RE: give it 6 months
By BansheeX on 11/16/2007 7:31:11 PM , Rating: 3
There aren't any games for it, if they actually had a library of say 50 games, with at least 30-35 being good games

This has already been addressed a million times be people smarter than you. The 360 had an ever worse selection of games in its first year than the PS3 has now after its first year. You are being extremely hypocritical and I would love to see this list of 35 good 360 games that haven't also been released on PS3 at this point. If you can't come up with it, you're going to have to apply your own logic to the 360. Your arbitrary numbers and unrealistic expectations of "success" make no sense whatsoever. It is mental masturbation at its finest.

Nobody cares that you only care about a couple of hyped exclusives like Final Fantasy and MGS. You're an idiot to buy a $300 console if you don't care about cross-platform games, the VAST MAJORITY OF GAMES. PS3 owners chose the PS3 over the 360 because it play almost the same games, plus many of its own exclusives and:

-is quieter
-is more reliable
-has free netplay
-is cheaper than the 360 over a three year period including netplay costs
-is a better HTPC
-has wifi internet
-has Hi-Def playback by default
-has games that use the hard drive to decrease load times
-has an upgradeable hard drive (accepts ANY 2.5 drive. Microsoft sells you proprietary ones to make more money.)
-can run linux and thus, MAME/emulators for retro systems (no limited selection like Wii VC)
-has folding@home for a good cause when you're at work or sleeping

That's way more console for your money, pal.


RE: give it 6 months
By Circle T on 11/16/2007 9:38:41 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The 360 had an ever worse selection of games in its first year than the PS3 has now after its first year.

When you are the only "next-gen" console at the time, its kind of hard to have a lot of cross platform games. Thus the reason there weren't many huge AAA games the first year for the 360. The PS3, on the other hand, now gets to share in the development knowledge, and gets many of the cross platform games that the 360 gets. Thats just what happens when you are first out. Its not like the 360 is somehow worse off. Saying one is worse than the other for 1st year titles is like saying one has a worse case of herpes. Neither was good, lets move on.
quote:
PS3 owners chose the PS3 over the 360 because...

Why do people need to choose sides? I didn't. I own both the 360 and PS3. I don't use the PS3 much at all, but I own it. I still don't get why people always have to make a battle out of this. Its my way or the highway, right?
quote:
-has free netplay

If $1 a week is too much to spend for all of what Live offers, then maybe a $400+ console should be considered too expensive as well.
quote:
-has wifi internet

Not all of them. My 20GB doesn't have it. But, I don't need it, so no biggie. But, just remember, it wasn't included with every version.
quote:
-has Hi-Def playback by default

After you buy some cables that are actually CAPABLE of high-def thanks to Sony skimping on the cables.
quote:
-has folding@home for a good cause when you're at work or sleeping

With the money you waste on your electrical bill by doing this, you could probably get a year of Live. Just a thought.
quote:
That's way more console for your money, pal.

Right now, you could go down to BB, drop $350 for the 360, get Forza and Marvel UA included free, and have enough left over for a year of Live Gold. So, for $400, you have 2 games (1 real good, one meh), you have a year of online, and you get the cables to play these games in high-def. For $400 on a PS3, you get a console, and....um....yea. OH wait, you do get Spiderman 3. Thats something, right?

Not trying to start crap, I'm just trying to show both sides here. I own both, and both are nice. Yes the 360 has issues, but so does the PS3. But, be honest, trying to say the PS3 is "way more console for your money" is a bit of stretch still. Yes, it does a lot, but you pay for it. And if you don't need some of those features, thats wasted money. Which, judging by your list, is fairly important to you.


RE: give it 6 months
By BansheeX on 11/17/2007 3:49:56 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Why do people need to choose sides? I didn't. I own both the 360 and PS3. I don't use the PS3 much at all, but I own it. I still don't get why people always have to make a battle out of this. Its my way or the highway, right?


Does this even need saying? It's twice as expensive to buy two consoles. $600 is not chump change to most people. FFS, people here were frothing for a week about getting $100 off on a movie player.

quote:
If $1 a week is too much to spend for all of what Live offers, then maybe a $400+ console should be considered too expensive as well.


What exactly does Live offer over the PS3 that is worth $250 over the console's life? They both have netplay. They both have a marketplace to sell you overpriced old games. It's underhanded to reduce the time frame to make the cost seem less than it is. For $1 a week, I could have five more new games or another console entirely. You think I should choose XBL over that?

quote:
After you buy some cables that are actually CAPABLE of high-def thanks to Sony skimping on the cables.


Oh no, a $5 digital cable. Check hi-def playback and a single hookup gaming/movie solution off the advantage list, honey!

http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id...

quote:
With the money you waste on your electrical bill by doing this, you could probably get a year of Live. Just a thought.


Or, you know, you can get free netplay and help cure diseases with the money you waste on xbox live...


RE: give it 6 months
By Circle T on 11/17/2007 11:27:07 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Does this even need saying?

But my point was, why do people need to CHOOSE SIDES like its a war. I understand you might not be able to BUY both. But just because you own one does not all of a sudden make the other a bad decision. Just be happy with what you bought, and get over it.
quote:
What exactly does Live offer over the PS3 that is worth $250 over the console's life?

That is for you to decide. My point wasn't that Live offers SOO much more than PSN, because they are similar. My point was that it only costs $1 a week. And in a time when a game console comes out at $600, spending $1 a week shouldn't be looked at like its some major deal.
quote:
It's underhanded to reduce the time frame to make the cost seem less than it is.

Lets see...

Xbox Live = $50/Year
One Year = 52 Weeks
52 Weeks / $50 = $1.04 per Week

Sorry. I forgot those 4 pennies.
quote:
For $1 a week, I could have five more new games or another console entirely.

You're right. By not having to pay $1 a week for your PS3, in 5 years you WILL have $250 extra in your pocket. But, while you are penny pinching your $400+ console, I will have easilly had $1 a weeks worth of fun playing Forza, Halo and Crackdown with my friends. As we do almost every week. While wasting that dollar. Its all relative I guess.
quote:
Oh no, a $5 digital cable.

But, is it included?? If its just a trivial "$5" cable, why not toss one in?? With all the talk Sony does about Blu-ray, and HD this, HD that, you would think they could at least toss in one of these "$5" cables. I mean, if anyone can click over to Monoprice and get one that cheap, think of what Sony could do buying in bulk. Hell, my Elite came with Composite, Component, and HDMI cables.
quote:
Or, you know, you can get free netplay and help cure diseases with the money you waste on xbox live...

Or, you know, you could have just taken the money you spent on a game console, and just donated it. No wasted energy, and you helped a cause. Oh wait, I forgot, this is a discussion with gamers. We only care about things when it helps our argument.


RE: give it 6 months
By BansheeX on 11/17/07, Rating: 0
RE: give it 6 months
By Circle T on 11/17/2007 10:15:43 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
...I was criticizing your attempt to use smaller amounts of time to psychologically trick yourself and others into thinking that XBL doesn't add up to a significant amount the console's life.

You don't get it, clearly. Regardless of whether you look at it by the week, or by 5-year chunks, its not that much. Like I said before, I will gladly pay $1/Week or $250/5-Year for the fun that I have with my friends. Doesn't matter how you look at it, I will pay for that fun. Maybe you can't, but I can spare $1 a week for 5 years to have that fun.

Now, don't get me wrong, I DO wish it didn't cost anything. But, it does, and so I will pay. It all levels out. Yes, you have to pay for Live. But, for the full package that you get with Live over PSN, it adds up. I mean, just look at what is offered on Live. That stuff isn't just put up there at no cost to MS. Thats what you get when a service has a fee. Games, TV Shows, Movies, Demos, Trailers, etc etc. The lack of fee for PSN is the only thing that makes it's lack of content acceptable. I can't remember the last time I even cared about anything on there.
quote:
You were trying to eliminate the value of blu-ray with this minor and resolvable issue.

Not at all. As much as I wish the whole format war would just go to hell, the fact is Blu-ray DOES have a benefit when it comes to games. I'm not denying that. My problem, just as it was when I bought my PS3 at launch, and still now a year later, is that for what you spend to own a PS3, the least they can do is give you a cable that will actually GIVE you HD.
quote:
I don't know what you're trying to say with this $1 a week stuff.

As I said before, I can spare $1 a week, for 5 years if need be, to have the experience I get with my friends online with my 360. Thats what I'm saying. I like free, as does everyone. But, for what I get on the 360, I will gladly pay that little ammount.
quote:
And how would that be an added value to the console?

EXACTLY!! Look, I love curing disease just as much as the next person. But be honest. That is NOT a feature. Yes, its nice that you can do that. But, if its that big of a deal to someone that they help with F@H, they would already be doing it. I have nothing wrong with F@H. Its just not something I personally would list in a "Features" run-down.
quote:
blah blah... deal ...blah blah... K-Mart ...blah blah... gift card ...blah blah... $320

Hey, you could then use the gift card for the HD capable cables. Can't forget those. ;)


RE: give it 6 months
By BansheeX on 11/18/07, Rating: -1
RE: give it 6 months
By Circle T on 11/18/2007 1:46:25 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
So you chose it because your friends did and you had to as well to play it with them?

Yes. We are all "wasting" just over $1 a week to have a lot of fun playing games together online. The Xbox has a lot of games that we like to play, and in order to play them together, you have to pay.
quote:
Thank you for finally divulging a logical reason for having to pay for something that is free on the other console.

Almost all of my friends have PS3s as well. We don't really use them much these days though. I would gladly pay Sony if that would get them to put out some games we WANT to play together. And I would certainly pay Sony to get the same experience I get with Live. Free is good, no question. But when free gets you crap, that doesn't mean much.


RE: give it 6 months
By EstoyLoco on 11/18/2007 10:50:51 PM , Rating: 2
You know I don't know why people make such a big deal out of XBL costing money it really isn't that much.

I am still on my 2nd month free access.
Xbox comes with 1 month out the box, + 1 month I got when I bought XBL Unplugged for $10 for 6 games+1 month XBL.

Not to mention that I still have my UNUSED XBL 13 Month Halo 3 card that I got from BB for $25.
And these 13 month Halo 3 cards are almost always on sale at Circuit City for $40 every other week.

Oh I also forgot the mention the 5 free XBL games that I got.
Hexic HD, Aegis Wings, Carcassonne, TotemBall, Yaris.


RE: give it 6 months
By BansheeX on 11/19/2007 12:08:26 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Yes. We are all "wasting" just over $1 a week to have a lot of fun playing games together online. The Xbox has a lot of games that we like to play, and in order to play them together, you have to pay.


Unfortunately, going back to your original beef with my post, this peer-pressure scenario doesn't change my objective comparison of value. I never questioned that XBL didn't have equally functional netplay. I simply put the PS3 down as having a superior netplay model for offering the same service without requiring fees. We can't objectively compare the two consoles when you start inserting subjective justifications that override the cost discrepancy no matter what. Game preference, what your friends are using, cannot be factored into a basic, general comparison about netplay cost.


RE: give it 6 months
By Circle T on 11/19/2007 1:48:02 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Game preference, what your friends are using, cannot be factored into a basic, general comparison about netplay cost.

But, that is my point. We all know PSN lets you play games online for free, and you have to pay a fee to do that on Live. No general comparison needed. If all you want is online gaming, for the least amount of $$$, the PSN all the way.

But, my point all along has been that with Live, you don't just get online gaming. For a console and company that are trying to rule the living room, Sony sure do have some cathing up to do with MS in terms of content offered and sheer amount of stuff to do.

And, thats what you get when you have over 8M people paying for a service that has now had 5 years to refine and better itself. In its current state, PSN somewhere between what Live offered on the original Xbox, and the current Live. Its good, but has A LOT of work to do to catch up.

Don't kid yourself for one second and think that Sony isn't charging us because they love their customers. It's because if they TRIED to charge for what they do offer as a whole, they would get laughed at.

Remember, this is the company that said no price-cuts were coming, only to drop the price 3 days later. The company that said rumble was a "Last-Gen" feature, only to later release the DS3 with rumble. And the company that said Backward Compatibility would always be a part of the PlayStation brand, only to drop it in the newest revision. So free online from Sony is HARDLY set in stone.


RE: give it 6 months
By BansheeX on 11/19/07, Rating: 0
RE: give it 6 months
By Circle T on 11/19/2007 12:11:06 PM , Rating: 2
Can you download movies from PSN??

Can you download TV shows from PSN??

Does PSN have as many "Arcade" style games available??

Does PSN have as many demos available??

Can I video chat on PSN??

Can I chat with friends who are on their computer with PSN??

Can I bring up my friends list in-game, and invite someone to join me on PSN??

Is voice chat guaranteed with a game using PSN??

Is that enough for you?

When I said they were similar, I was speaking of the overall scope of things. The both have demos, games to download, trailers, friends, etc etc. But, my point THIS WHOLE TIME has been that for everything you can do on PSN, there is more of it available on Live. Yes, its free with PSN. But thats why its so limited in content and features.

Its like comparing a Honda Accord to a Mercedes S-Class. Yes, they are both 4-door sedans and will get you where you need to go. But, with the extra cost associated with the MB, you do get a bigger car, more powerful engines, and many more options. But, like I said, and you just quoted again, it is up to you to make the choice on how much value there is. Cost is objective, value is subjective.

Both cars drive you around. Some people see no benefit to spending $80K on a car, when $25K will do just fine. Same with PSN and Live. Some people are fine with what PSN offers for no fee. The cost associated has no value. Others are ok with the cost associated with Live because the extra features are worth it to them. The extra cost has value. Its up to you.

We would all love to be able to get the features and options of a $80K car for only $25K, but that won't happen. We would all love it if we could get everything that Live offers for the cost of PSN, but we won't. You chose the PS3 over the 360 because its extra cost had value. You said yourself in that big list. Those features are of value to you, so the cost is fine. Well, for me, the extra cost associated with Live is fine for what I get.


"Folks that want porn can buy an Android phone." -- Steve Jobs














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki