| theprof00 said: What a flamer. Try using english so I can respond to your post next time. :D 1) I didn't say ps3 wasn't overtracked. I asked if you were presenting a serious argument, because I thought you were kidding. I stand corrected. I'm not appearing to be saying anything. It is only by your own viewpoint that you abse such a decision. Okay, let me be clearer, what you have said in this thread leads me to believe you have a pro-Sony agenda that colors your view of reality to such a point that it is skewed. This would caution me that in the future when reading anything you post, I understand that any argument you present is not an argument towards the realization of truth, but to further your agenda. We have a question of how much is ps3 overtracked. The answers thus far have been "it either is as stocked as 360", or "it is less stocked as 360, and 360 is undertracked", or "ps3 is fine", or "ps3 is overtracked somewhat". My response answers all questions unilaterally. 360 is fine where it is, as indicated by the facts we have. You have no facts that state this, as evidenced above. You make a poorly realized statement as the basis of your argument (sales estimates are more accurate than shipping numbers) than build on that as if it proves anything. ps3 is overtracked, and likely by 500k given how much stock is typical at this time of year, and also possibly slowing down the production when they are currently losing money on it as written in the Sony FY release. I have made no statement as to how much the PS3 is overtracked, only that I believe the shipping numbers presented prove that it is. You don't want to speculate using logic, then that's fine. I'll give it a shot though. I have used logic, and I think we can respond to each other without resorting to name calling. I'm open to hearing any sound argument you may provide to prove your point, but I don't think you have shown any yet. |
Please see my responses above.








