Ps3 is now at 16.15 million --- where 360 was at the END of Last year!

[Bitmap Frogs]

Loud_Hot_White_Box said:

Bitmap Frogs said:

Loud_Hot_White_Box said:

Bitmap Frogs said:

Alby_da_Wolf said:

Sardauk said:

Kleppemeister said:
Incredible what a brand name can do. When you can get almost all of the same games on a cheaper system, a few you cant get, and even more you can't get on the Ps3, and people still keep buying the Ps3. Basicly, people know a brand, and buy it. Going from the unbeliveble sales of the Ps2 to what the Ps3 has become now, is really really bad work on Sony's side tho. Nintendo sells there consoles with new names, and this time it is really kicking butt, without a brand at all. Microsoft is still building threre brand, so good work on there part by getting this far this gen.

 

It is especially true in Europe. People buy the Ps3 because they know the brand and there is also a strong Ps2 install base.The marketing of Ms is minimal here ...

Only hardcore gamer directly switched to the 360.

But now that we have an economical crisis, people will probably look twice before spending 200 Euros more for a game console ...

If MS weren't that bunch of greedy paranoid monopolistic vampires they are, I'd feel sorry for them when I see the utterly bland and lame commercials they do here in Italy. I'm not surprised casual market doesn't even understand what they are.

 

 

That's funny considering Sony pretty much held a monopoly on the market for the past 6-7 years and they greedily used that to shove down their loyal fans throat a 600$ trojan to push the HD format war, the revenues of which won't come back in any way to the users unless they hold Sony shares.

LOL, it's nothing compared to the Windows monopoly.  "Shove"?  Just don't buy PS3 if you don't like it.  You wouldn't buy blu ray disks anyway, so it doesn't matter!  Get it?  But now....Windows, different story.  Windows doesn't just compete with others the way BR competed with HDDVD.  If you don't get the differences...

Benefits don't come back to users?  Not true.  Bigger storage media helps with games, too, and lots and lots of people like to watch BR movies. 

Still, though, faster sales than 360.  It's got appeal, man!  And brand powah.

 

 

Nothing compared? Ok 90% and 70% are not equal but both mean the same - overwhelming and overpowering market advantadge through massive market share. And no, not a single $ from BR royalties will come back to the customers who shelled out the big bucks so that Sony could win the format war. Heck, they won't even get barely any advantadge in games since all multiplatform games have to fit in the 7gigs of the 360's DVD since that's where the sales are.

By the way, you don't have to buy windows if you don't like it, neither. See? the argument works both ways. Either both Sony and Microsoft held a monopoly or neither does.

 

Dumb.  The benefit is RECEIVING A BLU-RAY PLAYER.  Don't demand that any company adding a feature to a product give money back to those who didn't want it.  Don't do it.  Btw, if enough people didn't want the Blu-Ray player in PS3, PS3 wouldn't have buried HD-DVD. (edit: Because it was BR disc sales that convinced the studios and thereby buried HD-DVD, not just player sales.)

Multiplats don't have to fit on one DVD...several devs have taken liberties with the PS3 version.

Re: the monopoly argument: it seems you've just admitted that Microsoft trojans things the same way Sony supposedly did with Blu-Ray...but you'd be wrong to equate the two.  Microsoft trojans programs along with Windows that are not themselves viable, profit-making products.  They do it only to quash other browsers, etc.  Blu-Ray in PS3 was an attempt to have success with Blu-Ray and make a profit.  Oh noes!  Horrible!  The extra $100 is not worth the 50gb game size limit and the ability to watch HD movie discs!  Sony is teh assholes!

 

 

A blue-ray player the benefit? Oh yeah, the privilege of paying premium prices for content. That's no benefit at all - if it was down the road with a larger and more accessible library, maybe... but these days? Premium price that btw, goes back to Sony's pocket.

And multiplats HAVE to fit on one DVD. All the liberties they take with the ps3 version are meaningless, else they'd be crippling sales on the 360 and that's exactly what devs can't afford. Anyways, whatever minor liberties they take at the end, the vast majority of multiplatforms run better on the 360 with one hand's fingers enough to count the multiplatforms that run better on the ps3. I know it burns you that you paid an extra 200$-150$ for something you won't largely get to enjoy but that was Sony's decision - thank them. Nevermind the mandatory hard-drive installs that they forced down to you with that 1x (or is it 2x?) drive.

As for the monopoly, it existed. For 6 years if you wanted the best games you had to buy a ps2 - just like if you want to have the largest software library you have to buy windows. It's just that you don't mind a Sony monopoly but take offence at a Microsoft monopoly. Which should be of no surprise given how you created an account to troll with your username and avatar.

Blu-Ray in the ps3 was just an attempt to use their leverage on the videogame market to forcefeed the format and it's elevated costs to consumers in a bid to win the format war. By the way, you should have your prices right when making price comparisons - it's way more than 100$. It was 200$ when the ps3 launched and it's 150$ bucks right now. Anyways it worked for them - Blu-Ray has won but it's crippled the platform as far as support goes. That's another cost ps3 users have to pay - ask jrpg players how much fun they are having with their Blu-Ray sporting consoles.