Boneitis said:
MetalGearSolid_4ever said:
Boneitis said:
the MetalGearSolid_4ever said:
Boneitis said:
The 360 might have performed better if the bundles weren't so crappy.
The PS3 had strong 1st party titles while the 360 basically had shovelware. |
excuses, excuses.
The real reason why PS3 sold more is that it had a 100$ price cut recently and had good ads.
|
You PS3 fans are so defensive.
I'm not saying the 360 would have outsold the PS3 with better games, I'm just saying it would have PERFORMED BETTER if it came with GOOD GAMES. It not an excuse and the fact is the PS3 got bundled with better games.
|
Defensive ? I was not defensive at all.
Fact still remains that most people expected PS3 to be outsold by 360 on BF and it was a poor performance by 360 in 2009 compared to 2008.
And I don't think that the modern warfare bundle along with AC2 and L4D2 is crap.
Truth is you are a defensive 360 fan.
|
You said "excuses, excuses" because you felt I was attacking the PS3 and that's clear as day. I'm just pointing out they did a much better job bundling the PS3 than the 360.
Also I did not see AC2 or L4D2 bundled. I saw the ads in the paper and I do read gaming news websites. So if those bundles were out there they must have been limited to certain locations. I do know those game were discounted, which I'm sure played a role in the 360 having superior software sales.
Truth is the 360 bundles were mostly lame (there might have been a few out there that had a good game). But every PS3 bundle had high quality games.
|
Please describe lame and why the PS3 bundles in comparison aren't to be considered as lame. (:
