fooflexible on 28 March 2007
Alacrist said: Ok, I get it the question doesn't make sense, if you feel that way then don't comment on it, it's just a "WHAT IF" question about gaming, I know that the way these systems are built they can't be 200 dollars that's why it's just a thread to say what would happen if their were. Nobody is forcing you to post, so if your not going to add to the thread don't post, it's a hypothetical situation and I thank those of you who posted on topic, FishyJoe and Lingyis your post had nothing to do with the topic, most people who disagree with it, still posted on topic.
Sorry if I came off knocking your idea, Alacrist. I didn't mean to insult or detract from your thread. I actually like these types of hypotheitcal questions for comparison sake. Despite the distortion of this scenario I like the root of what your getting at. Thats kind of why I threw up my last post, where I reworded this scenario to get more to what I think is the heart of the question. And that was:
Fooflexible said: So I think the best comparison here to make is this: If we all recieved all three consoles for free, which system would you be buying the most games for, and spending the most time playing?
That is fair, as the system war really comes down to software purchase, regardless of the platform the winner is really decided buy time and money spent on a system.
(Hey does this make me the first person to quote myself?
And if this takes away from your original thread, well I'm sorry. (I know, I know I can just go and get my own thread...
)
