Final-Fan said:
2. I never said that there wasn't ANYONE who had EVER said such things on these forums. But let's take a look at those: A. "Is the 360 in trouble?" "In trouble"=/=dead. B. "Its over for the 360" I'll give you this one, though I'll point out that pretty much everyone agreed that it's not over, then the debate turned to whether the 360 was being beaten by PS3 which is very different from whether it is dead. C. I'm not impressed by you digging up a single post in a thread to match your claim, but I AM impressed that it apparently didn't even say "360" in that post! I searched the text of that page and did not find one instance of "360" that talked about it being dead or dying, although there were several about the 360 AND PS3 being doomed. D. I see a lot of talk about games and sales, and vague sales predictions. Some of these predictions were rosy for the PS3 and some (less) were gloomy for the 360, but I didn't spot any "360 dead/doomed" posts. If you equate "going to be 3rd place" with "is dead", well then, yeah. 4. I have better ways to spend my time than listening to Pachter. (How long is the podcast anyway?) Your widget example gives a lesson of "small scale but at a profit beats large scale at a loss." Well that's nice, but what are you comparing? You say you're talking about the original Xbox, but I don't quite get why you spent that much time on it just to say "well MS is doing better on the 360." What was the point of all that? I thought you were trying to imply that the 360 was on a "profit" model while the PS3 was on a "loss" model, which would have been pretty misrepresentative of the facts. I'm glad I was wrong there, but now I have to ask why you spent so much time talking about the original Xbox when the subject at hand should be the 360 or other current-gen systems and situations. 5. That's an OK description of propaganda. But I am very surprised that you deny trying to influence anyone. Isn't the entire purpose of your post to convince people who think the 360 is dead (who actually turn out not to really exist in this forum) that it is in fact the best system "going forward" for "the 'core gaming' market"? That's known as "influencing", my friend. But there's one important thing about propaganda: "The most effective propaganda is often completely truthful, but some propaganda presents facts selectively (thus lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis..." Propaganda is often just a completely one-sided presentation of the facts -- all "pro" and no "con". In the case of your OP, it has 360 "pros", PS3 "cons", and an inexplicable little paragraph rambling about widgets and the original Xbox. Not one word about RRoD -- not even to say that it's better now; no mention that PSN is free -- not even to say "but XBL is better!"; etc. etc. Textbook propaganda, uplifting the ally and denouncing the enemy. As for having to refute your sources, quite frankly I actually don't, as I have not said that any of them were lying. But when one of your sources is a Microsoft press release that doesn't have any relevant information at all, I just have to laugh. You know what? I'll go ahead and take a quick stab at the rest of your sources. (I have no objection at this time to the Blu-ray one.) Why do you have a source on what the average PS3 game budget is and not the 360? That by nature doesn't support any comparison at all. Why did your source for "Look at which platform is cheaper to develop for" NOT HAVE INFO ON DEV COSTS?! (None, that is, beyond a generic $15m throwaway line.) Maybe I just overlooked it somehow, but it doesn't matter since it used the infamous iSuppli graph. Instant credibility loss. Why do your sources for "Look at which console has the higher attach rate" NOT HAVE THE PS3 ATTACH RATE?! I believe you that it's higher, but come on, you have to give 360 AND PS3 sources for evidence of which is higher. And here's a hint: sources dating back to the PS3 launch won't cut it. Why does your "source" for the 360's ability to drop in price date to BEFORE THE FUCKING LAUNCH OF THE XBOX 360?!?! SERIOUSLY. Are you citing 'we'd like to drop prices year by year' as some kind of proof of ... anything? It also says that the PS3 might launch in spring 2006 at a cheaper price than the 360, and look how that turned out. Overall, I would rate your OP as particularly low-quality propaganda. You knew that you needed to have links called "sources", but you didn't seem to understand that the "sources" have to back up what your claims. Consider this an official request for clarification on the above questions. And also one more: Am I just completely blind? Did my eyes just glaze over and refuse to see that your sources actually had all the information you were telling us? I find that hard to believe, but then I find it hard to believe that you'd cite so many sites that DON'T. I'm perfectly capable of making mistakes, and this would be a doozy. |
2.
In response one must look at the underlying point of the threads in which I posted. I will agree the actual phrase, “the 360 is dead” may not have been said, but it is clear that the point of any post in question was in some way illogical. Coming from Gamespot, I have grown somewhat accustom of seeing dim and brainless threads and was merely proving that VGcharts is not excluded from having their own share of console favoured thinkers. This is not wrong by any means, one can choose what to post, but I am simply displaying that VGcharts is not an anomaly from the console war fanboyism that has taken this generation by storm.
4.
“You say you're talking about the original Xbox, but I don't quite get why you spent that much time on it just to say "well MS is doing better on the 360." What was the point of all that? “
“I thought you were trying to imply that the 360 was on a "profit" model while the PS3 was on a "loss" model, which would have been pretty misrepresentative of the facts.”
Let me clear up what I was saying for you because it is quite clear you are having a tough time. What I was saying in relation to my widget example was rather simple. The XBOX 360 was produced with the business model in mind to make money on the sale of the console and NOT the sale of software. The PS3 was produced with the business model of introducing a new format to the market and not on making profit on the sale of the hardware. The point I made about the XBOX was to simply show how there last gen model did not provide business means to continue with the same strategy that is all. To quote my original response, “The widget example was to illustrate how last gen with the XBOX, MS was not worried about making a profit on their console and why it is better to sell something at a profit.”
Hopefully this is clear enough for you now. If not I have again included links to further backup my point. http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=322340
To Quote:
"The Blu-ray was such a critical part of their business model, they couldn't let it go.”“Today, Sony's strategy to marry the Blu-ray with its next-generation video console”
Clear enough? I hope so!
5.
Ok so now on to what appeared to be your endless rant of my “propaganda” and how it was purely posted to influence the readers of this site. Well plain and simple, my post was to simply state that the Xbox 360 is not dead. Prior to reading, I encourage you to see how widespread this thought is for many PS3 gamers including some who have responded to this thread. I will answer each of your points individually as to make this as straight forward as possible.
Isn't the entire purpose of your post to convince people who think the 360 is dead (who actually turn out not to really exist in this forum) that it is in fact the best system "going forward" for "the 'core gaming' market"?
No. The purpose of this post was to refute the claims across the internet that the 360 is not DEAD and provide evidence accordingly. I was not trying to show that the 360 is the “best system "going forward" for "the 'core gaming' market" as you claimed in your response. I can understand to some extent that you could have taken that out of what I posted, but this is clearly not the case. It is my opinion that the 360 is the best system going forward for core gaming, but this is my opinion, and was not the basis of this thread or the references that I provided. Clearly based on the title and subject of this thread, one could have easily asserted my aim but again, I am assuming.
Not the best system, but not dead is the point here. Consumers have opinions, thoughts, likes and dislikes and who am I to try to sway them another way? Do I really give a shit if someone likes the PS3 over the 360? No, not in the slightest, this was merely a thread to discredit gamers who were being illogical in their reasoning, nothing more.
Why is MS Dead, I don’t get it...that gives you the impression that I am claiming that it is the best system going forward for the core gaming market?
In the case of your OP, it has 360 "pros", PS3 "cons", and an inexplicable little paragraph rambling about widgets and the original Xbox. Not one word about RRoD -- not even to say that it's better now; no mention that PSN is free -- not even to say "but XBL is better!"; etc. etc. Textbook propaganda, uplifting the ally and denouncing the enemy.
What was the point of this thread? Was it to do a full on console comparison? Was I trying to compare pros and cons of both the PS3 and XBOX 360? If this was a comparison then sir you are right, I would be clearly one sided and be “uplifting the ally and denouncing the enemy” as you put it, but this is not what the aim of this thread was.
The aim of this thread sir was to simply refute the theory that the XBOX 360 is dead and why it is in a good position moving forward. Take for example the following website claiming this:
http://www.itwire.com/content/view/17494/1092/
So you tell me sir, how does “propaganda” work? What is needed to appropriately deem that a phrase, message or article is in fact stemming from a theory or form of propaganda? Do you actually even understand the foundation of the word propaganda and what it implies? The foundation if this thread is what is called, “rebuttal” sir and does not contain all 4 of the characteristics of propaganda defined by Herman and Chomsky's propaganda model, which you are welcome to look up in Google. Understand this, this is a RESPONSE and not some form of message that I am trying to convey to persuade or convince the gaming public.
Why do you have a source on what the average PS3 game budget is and not the 360? That by nature doesn't support any comparison at all. Why do you have a source on what the average PS3 game budget is and not the 360? That by nature doesn't support any comparison at all. Why does your "source" for the 360's ability to drop in price date to BEFORE THE FUCKING LAUNCH OF THE XBOX 360?!?! SERIOUSLY. Are you citing 'we'd like to drop prices year by year' as some kind of proof of ... anything?
First and foremost I WAS NOT TRYING TO COMPARE ANYTHING! The whole basis of your response hinders on this “comparison” theory that you have. Was it that hard to see that I was merely refuting a widespread argument amongst PS3 owners? I mean you say the word “comparison” or “compare” about 5 times throughout your response, if you want a full on comparison go to IGN or CNET and you will find a good one. If you feel that my sources were biased or faulty then so be it, but do not claim that I was trying to do something that I was so clearly not. As far as I am concerned gamers can choose to disagree or agree with what I am stating, it is my opinion backed up by sources of information. Your right, I may have spent 10 minutes writing up my original thread and may have not looked that deeply into several details. But in all honesty, what is the point? In the end you or any other console favoured fan doesn’t take criticism or a negative connotation to your console that well. Your too quick to jump and say one thread, person, or comment is attacking your beloved box instead of trying to obtain and understand the intrinsic meaning of a message. Well I will try to dumb things down next time I guess.
