The bad economy killed the PS3

Reserved for modern gaming discussions.
Oltobaz1
Posts: 1605
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm

The bad economy killed the PS3

Postby Oltobaz1 » February 4th, 2009, 2:36 pm

Stalin, come on, just admit you're wrong, it happens. I like the end of one of your wall of text, in which you admit you may have been biaised. I think you should very much consider that's a possibility.

Roperious1
Posts: 248
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm

The bad economy killed the PS3

Postby Roperious1 » February 4th, 2009, 7:52 pm

And back to numbers, worldwide numbers at that,


The Playstation 3 in year 3, the Xbox 360 is in year 4. If you compare the sales of the Xbox 360, in Year 3 to that of the PS3 in year 3, the PS3 is ahead of the 360.

What does that tell us? I'll let you come up with something.

Steve1
Posts: 285
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm

The bad economy killed the PS3

Postby Steve1 » February 4th, 2009, 8:25 pm

[QUOTE]And back to numbers, worldwide numbers at that,[/QUOTE]

Numbers mean nothing. And this is nothing against the PS3/360 or Wii. Are we measuring quality by systems sold? Or are we measuring just simple sales. I will eventually buy a PS3 so I have nothing against but I will say this.....how many people have bought a PS3 for its Blu-Ray capabilities? I only know of three people that have PS3 systems......two of them use it for Blu-ray only (one of those 2 has a 360 for gaming). The third does limited gaming on it but mostly Blu-ray

Also, as I have posted before, if you want to use numbers, why not look at numbers such as attach rate (tie ratio). My understanding is that Xbox 360 has one of the highest tie ratios for any system past or present (I could be wrong about the past and have no data to back up the past). I looked on VGChartz for tie ratio and find 360 at 7.89 and PS3 at 5.88. Does it mean the 360 is better? Well, I personally think so but in reality, it does not. It is just a number that can be twisted by anyone in anyway. What's funny is that the Wii has an even lower tie ratio at 5.75 but that system is just tearing up the sales charts.

Numbers....go figure.

Stalin

The bad economy killed the PS3

Postby Stalin » February 4th, 2009, 8:59 pm

I do not know how my arguments have been getting weak.

I have re-read my recent two posts regarding the DVD and VHS formats, and I have superbly argued that DVD was not a major up-grade to the VHS.

I do not own a 55 inch television with surround sound, and I must repeat that I cannot detect a major difference between the two formats.

So far, no one has argued against any part of my argument regarding DVD and VHS, but some have merely claimed that my arguments have been getting weak without evidence and that I should surrender my claims.

I will not surrender my claims without a major motive to do so.

The sales of the Xbox 360 in its year 3 (2007) far outnumber the sales of the PS3 in its year 3 (2008).

2007 was the year when sales for the Xbox 360 had been increasing dramatically, and it was the year when Microsoft began to dominate the next-generation console market.

If the PS3 had sold nearly as well as the Xbox 360 in 2008, then Sony should be second place in this generation's console wars.

Sony is currently lagging heavily behind in third place, so I think it is simply ridiculous that some are claiming the PS3's sales in 2008 to be ahead of the Xbox 360's sales in 2007.

I might believe that this is true if it was backed up by some kind of evidence, but I am sure that my claims have far more evidence to back it up.

The Xbox 360 is doing far better than the PS3, and this is currently a fact, and it is not as if Sony was second place and continually competing with Microsoft for the position of first place.

The PS3 is simply far behind the Xbox 360, so I cannot really believe that sales for the PS3 in 2008 are ahead of sales for the Xbox 360 in 2007.

Do not forget that the Xbox 360 was a major console in 2007, and that many gamers worldwide had purchased the console in that year.

Emehr

The bad economy killed the PS3

Postby Emehr » February 5th, 2009, 8:04 am

[QUOTE=Stalin]I have re-read my recent two posts regarding the DVD and VHS formats, and I have superbly argued that DVD was not a major up-grade to the VHS. [/QUOTE]
Lol. Is this a joke? Okay, I'll bite...

So you would say a VHS tape that has been viewed multiple time to the point that the colors shift onscreen or you get tracking issues is comparable to the quality of a DVD?

If you need proof, try a scientific experiment: Take a brand new VHS tape (well, one that hasn't seen a lot of action anyway), put it in your video cassette recorder machine, play it all the way through, rewind it, play it all the way through, rewind it...continue about fifty times. Don't clean the heads during this process. This is a scientific experiment after all.

Now take a brand new DVD, put it in your digital versatile disk player, play it all the way through, go to the menu screen and play it again (notice that you didn't have to rewind. Look, we already have progress!), repeat about fifty times.

Now compare the image of both videos. Not only that, reflect upon how much easier it was to deal with the DVD: no rewinding; it doesn't get "eaten" by the player, menus that let you jump to any scene almost instantly, no tracking, and a consistent picture every time!

It's not just about the image onscreen, it's about the user experience. And to say that the jump from VHS form DVD was no big deal you must either be (a) joking/trolling or (b) weren't around in a time when there were no DVDs.

Roperious1
Posts: 248
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm

The bad economy killed the PS3

Postby Roperious1 » February 5th, 2009, 9:25 am

Since you've already been on VG Chartz, just check it there. Compare hardware sales from launch and the answer is evident.

Let's think about sales again. Working in retail while i'm finishing up my first degree I hear time and time again why people by Xbox 360's- "because my friends have them". I will be direct- [U]sales matter[/U]. They provide a momentum for other sales based on overall hype. Why wouldn't you want to play online with your friends. Naturally one would seek out the same console in order to link up with their friends online. This, in my opinion, is why sales matter, and quite frankly a major boost to the Xbox 360.


Also It is the matter of time. The counter towards twisting numbers may very well be vaild, however, you offered no answer to the issue of [I]time[/I]. The Xbox 360 was the [B]only[/B] next gen console on the market for a whole year (though plagued with shipping deficiencies and hardware issues) before anything else, thus, it enjoyed a 100% market share- not to mention a significant head start over the competitors. To suggest that this is not significant is foolhardy and quite simply ludicrous.


ajsmart1
Posts: 609
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm

The bad economy killed the PS3

Postby ajsmart1 » February 5th, 2009, 11:42 am

[QUOTE=Stalin]
I might believe that this is true if it was backed up by some kind of evidence, but I am sure that my claims have far more evidence to back it up.
[/QUOTE]


Any more irony and I think my head might explode.


m0zart1
Posts: 3117
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm

The bad economy killed the PS3

Postby m0zart1 » February 5th, 2009, 12:07 pm

Alright that does it!  Screw you guys, I'm going home!

Talking poo is where I draw the line!

P.S. Is Stalin your real name or are you trying to be controversial?

Steve1
Posts: 285
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm

The bad economy killed the PS3

Postby Steve1 » February 5th, 2009, 6:56 pm

[QUOTE]

Also It is the matter of time. The counter towards twisting numbers may very well be vaild, however, you offered no answer to the issue of time. The Xbox 360 was the only next gen console on the market for a whole year (though plagued with shipping deficiencies and hardware issues) before anything else, thus, it enjoyed a 100% market share- not to mention a significant head start over the competitors. To suggest that this is not significant is foolhardy and quite simply ludicrous.

[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure how to respond to this (assuming it was directed at my comments) however, I will attempt to reply. First of all, I don't think I suggested a year 'head-start' was not significant. If I did, please remind me so I can recant that statement. Having a year head-start is very significant. That is the very reason Xbox 360 was pushed out the door before it was ready.

What I DO find interesting about the whole "year head-start" argument is that PS2 had a year head start on Xbox and Gamecube yet some people don't see that as one of the major reasons that it (PS2) did so well. Unfortunately, noone will ever know what would have happened if all three consoles were released at the same time.

For another point, the Xbox 360 having a year head start is not 100% accurate. They were the first 7th generation console, that is true. However, competing with a juggernaut like the 5 year old PS2 probably kept a few early buyers away.

My major argument in my first post is that numbers really don't mean anything as they can all be skewed. It was nothing against any of the three systems. As I said, I am getting a PS3 eventually.

My second argument is that there are people out there who bought a PS3 for Blu-ray and nothing more. There is nothing wrong with that but since this is a gaming site/forum, I think it was a relevant statement to make.

No hard feelings.....just my opinion.


N64Dude1
Posts: 1242
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm

The bad economy killed the PS3

Postby N64Dude1 » February 5th, 2009, 7:46 pm

Last I checked the title siad  The bad economy killed the PS3,therefore imlying an argument over whether it did or didn't,not an all out war against Stalin/aa


Return to “Modern Gaming”