By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
algorith on 02 August 2010
Edit Thread
unknown_soul89 said:
algorith said:
unknown_soul89 said:
Monges79 said:

In America, no. The PS3 doesn't have a chance. I do agree with many people that Sony has done a 180 degree turn with this console, and I'm glad. And for third place, this console has sold great. Will it take over the 360 for lifetime sales? Probably not. There are no guarantees though. People are still buying the PS2, which to me is absurd, but the PS2 had the best lineup of games ever, so far. I guess we'll wait and see.

Year to Year PS3 sells more worldwide, so all ps3 has to do to beat 360 in sales is be on the market for the same amount of years, if it does that it will take over the 360 in lifetime sales, not to mention the ps3 is alot more future proof so I can see it being out for more years then 360 

 How is the PS3 more future proof? when we look back and we see the PS2 - the weakest hardware last gen- being the one console that lasted the longest. So if anything the Wii is the more future proof console.

 I think the next generation of systems will be upon us soon and this current race will be irrelevant. The PS3 and 360 will probably finish within less than 10 million units of each other, a triumph for MS and a defeat to Sony. 

blu-ray and the fact that ps3 exclusives are better (from a technical standpoint) then any other console games out there (a few pc ones beat it if you max out the settings) and thats with the software not even close to the optimization level of the wii or 360

your logic is extremely flawed, the reason the ps2 was so future proof was its library and the fact that Sony kept supporting it, the amount of games that came out that gen that it didn't have on were very few, xbox original and gamecube exclusives were few and meh and did next to nothing better then ps2 exclusives, thats not true of the wii, the wii has next to no multiplats and it's exclusives some are good yes but nothing compared to ps3s or even some of 360s (more so if you count pc/360 but I don't), and the 360 is having issues with size constraints for awhile since it only has dvd and it's hardware isn't very powerful compared to the cell, it has had the advantage of far more refined software but that advantage lessons over time 

bottom line, if MS and nintendo released a new console ps3 could compete head to head, and even have multiplat on the new console and the ps3, thats not really true of either of the others 


 XBOX exclusives were technically better and yet the PS2 outlived it. There is no flaw in the logic. More powerful hardware does not equal longer support. That has been proven last generation. 

 Sony kept supporting the PS2 because it kept selling otherwise they wouldn't have supported it. The PS2 was actually kept alive more due to third-party and Wii cross-platform games than Sony itself. So the correct thing to say would be, whatever console keeps selling moderately high will be supported. 

 I don't think your opinion of PS2 vs GC and XBOX games adds anything to the debate especially since, quantity wise, the PS3, 360 and Wii are much closer in software count than PS2 was in comparison to other consoles last generation. 

 I don't agree with your last statement either, what makes you think that the PS3 could compete head-to-head (I'm assuming you mean technically, since you mention multi-platforms) with the next generation of consoles. I think you've bought into the PS3 power hype and think the PS3 some kind of super machine. When in reality the PS3 has been outdated for a long time and the systems next generation will probably be far better than the machine. But again, technical merits aside, the system that gets supported longer is the one that keeps selling (since more devs keep supporting it) as we've already seen last generation.