This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

PS3 (70.2 mil) finally outsell 360 (70 mil) as of 09/30/2012

#201LoveFreakFlonnePosted 11/28/2012 1:20:45 PM
Now the true question is... How many people bought all three and then let two of them rot in a closet somewhere.
---
I'm just a dirty little pop song, that keeps running through your brain. And even though you know its so wrong you're gonna love going insane.
#202ScymitePosted 11/28/2012 1:22:43 PM
OmgitsMario posted...
Scymite posted...
monkeypahng posted...
Ben__Affleck posted...
Everybody here reassured?

Seriously. What's up with the PS3 board making so many reassurance topics daily?


Because they can't do it with the Vita. Also they're getting ready for the next gen consoles.


It's because Sony undisputedly lost the 7th gen in more ways than one, that blind supporters will grab at anything for reassurance, especially false information like a completely innaccurate wikipedia article.

Just because Sony lost this gen doesn't mean PS3 isn't awesome, people. You don't need to reassure yourself with misinformation - it is already known that the PS3 is great, but it just happened to not be as successful as Nintendo or Microsoft.

Can't win 'em all, let's just hope Sony has learned more than a few things from their failures. Why do we fall? So we can pick ourselves back up.


I guess your opinion revolves on a different axis. I think that the best console is the winner of the generation, not which company did the best. And going with that logic, I don't think the Wii or the 360 was better than the PS3. I'm positive PS3 had better games, and is just the more powerful console in general.


My subjective opinion, actually, would be that Nintendo lost this gen, with Sony in 2nd and MS in 1st for overall quality of games easily, but my more objective opinion is that Sony lost, easily evidenced by the company's financial position and it was the ONLY platform that LOST userbase across generations, which speaks volumes.
---
"half life is god, if you gave gordon freeman long hair he'd be freaken jesus with a crowbar" -- ilovecarebears
#203SomnusNemorisPosted 11/28/2012 1:23:03 PM
OmgitsMario posted...
The MSX is considered more of a design spec/home computer. Don't try and pull that crap and say that that was a "console." Everyone considers the Xbox their first console, stop looking into it.

This is true, Methos.
#204methosagainPosted 11/28/2012 1:29:35 PM(edited)
SomnusNemoris posted...
OmgitsMario posted...
The MSX is considered more of a design spec/home computer. Don't try and pull that crap and say that that was a "console." Everyone considers the Xbox their first console, stop looking into it.

This is true, Methos.


No its not, the MSX was positioned as a standard gaming device even if an PC, and it still proves my point, MS created a gaming platform way before Sony or Nintendo did and this platform spawned some of the greatest series of all times. You cannot spin facts.

http://kotaku.com/5675364/microsofts-computer-gave-birth-to-japanese-gaming-legends

http://www.the-digital-reader.com/2011/02/13/check-out-microsofts-first-gaming-console/#.ULZz_qz7JCQ

There was also this little known console that ran on MS logic much like the Dreamcast did:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tandy_Video_Information_System
#205OmgitsMarioPosted 11/28/2012 1:28:21 PM
Scymite posted...
OmgitsMario posted...
Scymite posted...
monkeypahng posted...
Ben__Affleck posted...
Everybody here reassured?

Seriously. What's up with the PS3 board making so many reassurance topics daily?


Because they can't do it with the Vita. Also they're getting ready for the next gen consoles.


It's because Sony undisputedly lost the 7th gen in more ways than one, that blind supporters will grab at anything for reassurance, especially false information like a completely innaccurate wikipedia article.

Just because Sony lost this gen doesn't mean PS3 isn't awesome, people. You don't need to reassure yourself with misinformation - it is already known that the PS3 is great, but it just happened to not be as successful as Nintendo or Microsoft.

Can't win 'em all, let's just hope Sony has learned more than a few things from their failures. Why do we fall? So we can pick ourselves back up.


I guess your opinion revolves on a different axis. I think that the best console is the winner of the generation, not which company did the best. And going with that logic, I don't think the Wii or the 360 was better than the PS3. I'm positive PS3 had better games, and is just the more powerful console in general.


My subjective opinion, actually, would be that Nintendo lost this gen, with Sony in 2nd and MS in 1st for overall quality of games easily, but my more objective opinion is that Sony lost, easily evidenced by the company's financial position and it was the ONLY platform that LOST userbase across generations, which speaks volumes.


I agree about that final part about losing their userbase, the price was just too high at launch. How does the 360 have the better games? Care to share what games? I feel like all that the 360 has is Halo and Gears of War, and I'm not trying to trash on the 360, I just really don't think they have any other exclusives of any value.
---
An intellectual is someone whose mind watches itself.
#206OmgitsMarioPosted 11/28/2012 1:37:10 PM
methosagain posted...
SomnusNemoris posted...
OmgitsMario posted...
The MSX is considered more of a design spec/home computer. Don't try and pull that crap and say that that was a "console." Everyone considers the Xbox their first console, stop looking into it.

This is true, Methos.


No its not, the MSX was positioned as a standard gaming device even if an PC, and it still proves my point, MS created a gaming platform way before Sony or Nintendo did and this platform spawned some of the greatest series of all times. You cannot spin facts.

http://kotaku.com/5675364/microsofts-computer-gave-birth-to-japanese-gaming-legends

http://www.the-digital-reader.com/2011/02/13/check-out-microsofts-first-gaming-console/#.ULZz_qz7JCQ

There was also this little known console that ran on MS logic much like the Dreamcast did:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tandy_Video_Information_System


Couple of things wrong with your statement.
1. It created a gaming platform before Nintendo? Incorrect, the NES came out in 1983, and it actually was a video game console to boot.
2. How can you say the MSX was solely a microsoft console/computer? The Sony brand is all over many of the MSX's.
3. The TVIS is considered a freakin CD rom.
---
An intellectual is someone whose mind watches itself.
#207SomnusNemorisPosted 11/28/2012 1:40:46 PM
Methos mirin MS baby status as gaming industry entrants! Bwaaa
#208methosagainPosted 11/28/2012 1:41:46 PM
OmgitsMario posted...
methosagain posted...
SomnusNemoris posted...
OmgitsMario posted...
The MSX is considered more of a design spec/home computer. Don't try and pull that crap and say that that was a "console." Everyone considers the Xbox their first console, stop looking into it.

This is true, Methos.


No its not, the MSX was positioned as a standard gaming device even if an PC, and it still proves my point, MS created a gaming platform way before Sony or Nintendo did and this platform spawned some of the greatest series of all times. You cannot spin facts.

http://kotaku.com/5675364/microsofts-computer-gave-birth-to-japanese-gaming-legends

http://www.the-digital-reader.com/2011/02/13/check-out-microsofts-first-gaming-console/#.ULZz_qz7JCQ

There was also this little known console that ran on MS logic much like the Dreamcast did:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tandy_Video_Information_System


Couple of things wrong with your statement.
1. It created a gaming platform before Nintendo? Incorrect, the NES came out in 1983, and it actually was a video game console to boot.
2. How can you say the MSX was solely a microsoft console/computer? The Sony brand is all over many of the MSX's.
3. The TVIS is considered a freakin CD rom.


The NES did not come out in 1983, the Famicom did, and yes the MSX predates it by several months. And you can try to spin the definition all you want, but the MSX, much like the C-64, the Amiga, the Atari ST, etc are considered as primarily gaming platforms. They may not be true consoles, but their main purpose and use was for gaming. Also yes Sony did distribute their own version of the MSX, but it was still MS components and MS owned, they only had a license to sell it.
#209methosagainPosted 11/28/2012 1:42:25 PM
SomnusNemoris posted...
Methos mirin MS baby status as gaming industry entrants! Bwaaa


Nope because as we both know, gaming history is sorta of my bag and this goof is decidedly clueless on it
#210DynheartPosted 11/28/2012 1:54:20 PM(edited)
methosagain posted...
OmgitsMario posted...
methosagain posted...
SomnusNemoris posted...
OmgitsMario posted...
The MSX is considered more of a design spec/home computer. Don't try and pull that crap and say that that was a "console." Everyone considers the Xbox their first console, stop looking into it.

This is true, Methos.


No its not, the MSX was positioned as a standard gaming device even if an PC, and it still proves my point, MS created a gaming platform way before Sony or Nintendo did and this platform spawned some of the greatest series of all times. You cannot spin facts.

http://kotaku.com/5675364/microsofts-computer-gave-birth-to-japanese-gaming-legends

http://www.the-digital-reader.com/2011/02/13/check-out-microsofts-first-gaming-console/#.ULZz_qz7JCQ

There was also this little known console that ran on MS logic much like the Dreamcast did:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tandy_Video_Information_System


Couple of things wrong with your statement.
1. It created a gaming platform before Nintendo? Incorrect, the NES came out in 1983, and it actually was a video game console to boot.
2. How can you say the MSX was solely a microsoft console/computer? The Sony brand is all over many of the MSX's.
3. The TVIS is considered a freakin CD rom.


The NES did not come out in 1983, the Famicom did, and yes the MSX predates it by several months. And you can try to spin the definition all you want, but the MSX, much like the C-64, the Amiga, the Atari ST, etc are considered as primarily gaming platforms. They may not be true consoles, but their main purpose and use was for gaming. Also yes Sony did distribute their own version of the MSX, but it was still MS components and MS owned, they only had a license to sell it.


Famicon...NES...same thing.

You're grasping here.

MSX, it's a PC. You may as well say all PC's now are Microsoft's gaming installments as well.

All they did was get it out there and did NOTHING but make operating systems. Now? Now they are worrying about gaming...totally different scenarios, and you know it.

I also want to say it's hard to take the MSX argument seriously, when Microsoft never really provided any gaming support for it. So the way I see it...they are still the newbs in the gaming industry; key word here is gaming, not hardware. Even then, Nintendo came out with the Famicon in 83 and made games for it?

---
Currently suffering Final Fantasy XIII-2