Vetteman94 said:
We have already been through this, and considering this "average gamer" only exists 25% of the time it is not the majority nor the average. |
Only 25% of the time? The moral of that whole post was that even with a regularly priced laptop, meant for more than just word processing and browsing the internet, is capable of running a lot of games. Considering the specs of that laptop, you don't think the average person has that or a comparable laptop or PC? You're fooling yourself if you think otherwise.
Given that, re-read what I said. If you're going to buy a 360 or PS3 (looking in terms of which experiences you, as a consumer, can have), and you're leaning towards the 360 because of games like Left 4 Dead or The Witcher, you realize "hey, the family computer back home can run those games, why would I buy a console for that?" and you realize the PS3 is a better choice, because you get those "exclusives not on PS3" and all the PS3 has to offer, instead of just getting those "exclusives not on PS3".....but with two mediums to play those games through. In this scenario, getting a 360 is redundant. And hate to break it to you, anybody that does the slightest bit of research will come to this conclusion.
Especially since you guys have been arguing in terms of the "core" audience. In that regard, it's crystal clear which console to buy is the wisest. It doesn't matter if you get to play Alan Wake not give your money to evil, evil Sony. I could play Alan Wake without owning a console at all. And so can millions of people. So that is clearly the silliest reason to say 360 > PS3
