By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sales - *What Is The Main Thing That Sells A System?*

 

*What Is The Main Thing That Sells A System?*

Game Library 96 41.74%
 
Price 36 15.65%
 
1 Huge Hit(Wii Fit, Kinect) 25 10.87%
 
All Play An Equal Role 73 31.74%
 
Total:230
fallen on 03 February 2011

For hardcore oriented consoles, it is graphics.



Around the Network
Squilliam on 03 February 2011
osamanobama said:
Squilliam said:
osamanobama said:

so how exactly is xbl better? i already posted reason why i feel psn is better

xbox did better with games in 2006, slightly better 2007, about the same in 2008. and ur not serious that they had equal game quality in 2009, are you? (Uncharted, infamous, kllzone, and more). 2010 was equal. and 2011 its not even close, ps3 by a land slide.

so what, xbox had netflix first, ps3 still has it (and with the recent up date, it now streams in higher picture and sound quality than xbox) so that not a feature that is better on xbox or one that ps3 doesnt have.

bolded made me lol. what exactly is unique about kinect, what was the eyetoy that came out a decade earlier. and what significant new gameplay can kinect accomplish that the ps eye and move cant. (also kinect is very limited in the games it can do, move is not. it has camera, motion controller, and navcon).

your really reaching here. your really downplaying the significance of bluray. and ignoring ps3 numerous features that A)xbox doesnt have or B) ps3 does better. also all ps3's come with this thing called a controller, it does the tasks of this remote thing you speak of. and actually ps3 is still one of the best bluray players on the market, actually 2nd best according to cnet.com (ps3 got beat out by a $800 bluray player)

thats speculation, but if i were to guess most people have their modems nears their computers, not near the TV. i know many people that but 100ft cat5 cables because they didnt want to shell out $100 for wifi adaptor (again proprietary)

How is Live better? You play online to play with friends, Live has more users and hence more friends online. That is the killer feature of any online network.

Doing better with games when there are fewer games is significantly better than when there are heaps of games. Also having Netflix is better than not having Netflix then when the PS3 gets netflix, having Netflix on 360 already doesn't give you a good reason to get Netflix on the PS3 even if Netflix on PS3 may be better. Getting there early is a significant advantage.

Whats unique about Kinect? Well the fact that its compelling and its already blown past 50% of the Eyetoy LTD sales which proves how compelling it is. The fact Sony did nothing with it this generation means nothing.

You downplay the importance of a remote? Well sure, Sony did too. People like to interact in a way which they are accustomed to.

Finally if wireless was so important the 360 wouldn't have had such a large online audience.

 


your 1st point leads back to what i said in the 1st place, your friends and everyone else has it, so you get it. again i dont know how much more users xbl has than psn, but id imagine its pretty close. also theres millions of users for both, so why would it mater if one had 500,000 vs 1,000,000/ according to your logic if wii online had more users than both psn and xbl, then it is the better online service.

again thats the past, and it still doesnt prove that xbox is better. which this whole argument seems to be about anyway. a game library is dramitically swinging in ps3's favor. also it doesnt mater ive netfix was on xbox 1st (it was on my pc 1st for that mater) ps3 has it and its better on it, another reason why i say ps3 is better.

so kinect is unique because of sales.  nice to know, and since when does sales= guality. and dont you think a $500 million marking budget had a lot to do with it. i couldnt eat cereal, go to burger king or watch tv without seeing something about kinect. id much rather play games like killzone with motion controller and have the ability to play pet the tiger games than be forced to play pet the tiger.

really a remote isnt really important, though it would be nice. you can use a contoller just as easy, and that still doesnt take away from ps3 being the 2nd best bluray player on the market only being bested by one that is twice the cost.

also wifi is important (though i previously never calimed it was) but unfotunately many americans are ignorant (not stupid) and probably didnt realize wifi on xbox cost >$100 and was free for ps3. also perception is key as to why xbl is so succseful and why people are still willing to pay more ($60) they think they are paying for better and more features(they pay to use their own internet connection to play a game that uses you as the server) people to this day still claim xbl is superior because when they play on psn they lag or its slow but not on xbl (even though as we know that has nothing to do with the networks but rather the games it self).

pretty much all youve said was xbox had better games when the ps3 launched in 2006, netfix was on xbox 1st, and xbl and kinect are great and better bc a lot of people have it.

and ive said people buy the system that everyone else has, and that ps3 is better because of said features

Wrong.

 



Tease.

AussieGecko on 03 February 2011
osamanobama said:

it was $499 and $599. and that all you need you didnt need, wifi, hddvd add-on, proprietary HDD, or $50 xbl. well i guess you could have bought another controller and a $10 mic.

im am not saying xbox is bad, nor im i trolling it, but surely you must admit that ps3 has superior capabilities. and it could be argued(easily) that ps3 has more/features . furthermore if you get ps3 you're not gonna miss out on many games, but if you only had an xbox you miss out on dozen of AAA titles (just look at 2011). 

i backed up my opinion why xbox inferior why reasons and facts, i suggest you do the same when you make comments like this

 

No It was 499 where you lived. In australia where I was basing mine it was that much. 

Why would I admit that, in terms of graphics Killzone 2 (possibly 3) and Uncharted 2 (as far as I have heard) passes everything on the 360. In terms of what Naughty Dog and Guerilla Games can do on the 360 who knows. They are both very good developers and know how to get the best out of something. 

360's main engine is UE3 and in terms of engines it is not the strongest but multiplats seem to like the 360 in more cases because of it.

You didnt back up with facts, you brought your opinion into it. Opinion is not fact. Please don't confuse them. 

You are simply saying PS3 has more features. If we are comparing why don't we bring everything into it Online etc. Why? Because you are conversing on your terms that is fine. But that is also why it is just your opinion.

In terms of ps3 and missing out on games, you miss out on games on the 360 as well. 2011 is not the only year go back and you will see more of an example. Just because games on the 360 can be ran on the PC should not hold them back at all. In fact it shows how 360 is benefitting from the PC as opposed to PS3. 



 

Bet with Conegamer and Doobie_wop 

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3879752

deskpro2k3 on 03 February 2011
Squilliam said:
osamanobama said:
Squilliam said:
osamanobama said:

so how exactly is xbl better? i already posted reason why i feel psn is better

xbox did better with games in 2006, slightly better 2007, about the same in 2008. and ur not serious that they had equal game quality in 2009, are you? (Uncharted, infamous, kllzone, and more). 2010 was equal. and 2011 its not even close, ps3 by a land slide.

so what, xbox had netflix first, ps3 still has it (and with the recent up date, it now streams in higher picture and sound quality than xbox) so that not a feature that is better on xbox or one that ps3 doesnt have.

bolded made me lol. what exactly is unique about kinect, what was the eyetoy that came out a decade earlier. and what significant new gameplay can kinect accomplish that the ps eye and move cant. (also kinect is very limited in the games it can do, move is not. it has camera, motion controller, and navcon).

your really reaching here. your really downplaying the significance of bluray. and ignoring ps3 numerous features that A)xbox doesnt have or B) ps3 does better. also all ps3's come with this thing called a controller, it does the tasks of this remote thing you speak of. and actually ps3 is still one of the best bluray players on the market, actually 2nd best according to cnet.com (ps3 got beat out by a $800 bluray player)

thats speculation, but if i were to guess most people have their modems nears their computers, not near the TV. i know many people that but 100ft cat5 cables because they didnt want to shell out $100 for wifi adaptor (again proprietary)

How is Live better? You play online to play with friends, Live has more users and hence more friends online. That is the killer feature of any online network.

Doing better with games when there are fewer games is significantly better than when there are heaps of games. Also having Netflix is better than not having Netflix then when the PS3 gets netflix, having Netflix on 360 already doesn't give you a good reason to get Netflix on the PS3 even if Netflix on PS3 may be better. Getting there early is a significant advantage.

Whats unique about Kinect? Well the fact that its compelling and its already blown past 50% of the Eyetoy LTD sales which proves how compelling it is. The fact Sony did nothing with it this generation means nothing.

You downplay the importance of a remote? Well sure, Sony did too. People like to interact in a way which they are accustomed to.

Finally if wireless was so important the 360 wouldn't have had such a large online audience.


your 1st point leads back to what i said in the 1st place, your friends and everyone else has it, so you get it. again i dont know how much more users xbl has than psn, but id imagine its pretty close. also theres millions of users for both, so why would it mater if one had 500,000 vs 1,000,000/ according to your logic if wii online had more users than both psn and xbl, then it is the better online service.

again thats the past, and it still doesnt prove that xbox is better. which this whole argument seems to be about anyway. a game library is dramitically swinging in ps3's favor. also it doesnt mater ive netfix was on xbox 1st (it was on my pc 1st for that mater) ps3 has it and its better on it, another reason why i say ps3 is better.

so kinect is unique because of sales.  nice to know, and since when does sales= guality. and dont you think a $500 million marking budget had a lot to do with it. i couldnt eat cereal, go to burger king or watch tv without seeing something about kinect. id much rather play games like killzone with motion controller and have the ability to play pet the tiger games than be forced to play pet the tiger.

really a remote isnt really important, though it would be nice. you can use a contoller just as easy, and that still doesnt take away from ps3 being the 2nd best bluray player on the market only being bested by one that is twice the cost.

also wifi is important (though i previously never calimed it was) but unfotunately many americans are ignorant (not stupid) and probably didnt realize wifi on xbox cost >$100 and was free for ps3. also perception is key as to why xbl is so succseful and why people are still willing to pay more ($60) they think they are paying for better and more features(they pay to use their own internet connection to play a game that uses you as the server) people to this day still claim xbl is superior because when they play on psn they lag or its slow but not on xbl (even though as we know that has nothing to do with the networks but rather the games it self).

pretty much all youve said was xbox had better games when the ps3 launched in 2006, netfix was on xbox 1st, and xbl and kinect are great and better bc a lot of people have it.

and ive said people buy the system that everyone else has, and that ps3 is better because of said features

Wrong.

I want to add these to your debate. They're pretty interesting.



KungKras on 03 February 2011

Killer apps



I LOVE ICELAND!

Around the Network
*Sound Of Rain on 03 February 2011
Seece said:

Why so black and white? It depends on the consumer. For gamers, it's game library. For everyone else it could be anything. PS3 for it's blu ray capabilites or Wii/Kinect for it's motion controls.

This thread was actually inspired by your comment in my other thread LOL.(My other thread was getting WAY off topic so I made this one to discuss where my other thread was heading)

You said:

"Price cut, I don't care if you refuse to believe that, but that's the answer. Just like Wii jumping up massivel this holiday from such a lul summer, all those good value bundle.

All about the $$$"

So as you can see I made a new thread to talk about what is the MAIN reason as to why a system sells.

Isn't this what you wanted to talk about in my other thread? Well, here you go!



osamanobama on 03 February 2011
AussieGecko said:
osamanobama said:

it was $499 and $599. and that all you need you didnt need, wifi, hddvd add-on, proprietary HDD, or $50 xbl. well i guess you could have bought another controller and a $10 mic.

im am not saying xbox is bad, nor im i trolling it, but surely you must admit that ps3 has superior capabilities. and it could be argued(easily) that ps3 has more/features . furthermore if you get ps3 you're not gonna miss out on many games, but if you only had an xbox you miss out on dozen of AAA titles (just look at 2011). 

i backed up my opinion why xbox inferior why reasons and facts, i suggest you do the same when you make comments like this

 

No It was 499 where you lived. In australia where I was basing mine it was that much. 

Why would I admit that, in terms of graphics Killzone 2 (possibly 3) and Uncharted 2 (as far as I have heard) passes everything on the 360. In terms of what Naughty Dog and Guerilla Games can do on the 360 who knows. They are both very good developers and know how to get the best out of something. 

360's main engine is UE3 and in terms of engines it is not the strongest but multiplats seem to like the 360 in more cases because of it.

You didnt back up with facts, you brought your opinion into it. Opinion is not fact. Please don't confuse them. 

You are simply saying PS3 has more features. If we are comparing why don't we bring everything into it Online etc. Why? Because you are conversing on your terms that is fine. But that is also why it is just your opinion.

In terms of ps3 and missing out on games, you miss out on games on the 360 as well. 2011 is not the only year go back and you will see more of an example. Just because games on the 360 can be ran on the PC should not hold them back at all. In fact it shows how 360 is benefitting from the PC as opposed to PS3. 

i dont have to list a spec sheet do I? i thought it was excepted that ps3 has better hardware.

have u seen a list of exclusives for each system that has 85 or better on metacritic. (sure there may be some niche games or games that have lower meta than that ,that 360 that you like better than whats on ps3, but on talking about games that have broad appeal and are accepted by most reviewers as being good)



osamanobama on 03 February 2011
Squilliam said:
osamanobama said:
Squilliam said:
osamanobama said:

 


your 1st point leads back to what i said in the 1st place, your friends and everyone else has it, so you get it. again i dont know how much more users xbl has than psn, but id imagine its pretty close. also theres millions of users for both, so why would it mater if one had 500,000 vs 1,000,000/ according to your logic if wii online had more users than both psn and xbl, then it is the better online service.

again thats the past, and it still doesnt prove that xbox is better. which this whole argument seems to be about anyway. a game library is dramitically swinging in ps3's favor. also it doesnt mater ive netfix was on xbox 1st (it was on my pc 1st for that mater) ps3 has it and its better on it, another reason why i say ps3 is better.

so kinect is unique because of sales.  nice to know, and since when does sales= guality. and dont you think a $500 million marking budget had a lot to do with it. i couldnt eat cereal, go to burger king or watch tv without seeing something about kinect. id much rather play games like killzone with motion controller and have the ability to play pet the tiger games than be forced to play pet the tiger.

really a remote isnt really important, though it would be nice. you can use a contoller just as easy, and that still doesnt take away from ps3 being the 2nd best bluray player on the market only being bested by one that is twice the cost.

also wifi is important (though i previously never calimed it was) but unfotunately many americans are ignorant (not stupid) and probably didnt realize wifi on xbox cost >$100 and was free for ps3. also perception is key as to why xbl is so succseful and why people are still willing to pay more ($60) they think they are paying for better and more features(they pay to use their own internet connection to play a game that uses you as the server) people to this day still claim xbl is superior because when they play on psn they lag or its slow but not on xbl (even though as we know that has nothing to do with the networks but rather the games it self).

pretty much all youve said was xbox had better games when the ps3 launched in 2006, netfix was on xbox 1st, and xbl and kinect are great and better bc a lot of people have it.

and ive said people buy the system that everyone else has, and that ps3 is better because of said features

Wrong.

 

great rebuttal, very informative. keep it up

you win xbox has more features and better hardware for a cheaper price.



osamanobama on 03 February 2011
deskpro2k3 said:
Squilliam said:
osamanobama said:
Squilliam said:
osamanobama said:

 


your 1st point leads back to what i said in the 1st place, your friends and everyone else has it, so you get it. again i dont know how much more users xbl has than psn, but id imagine its pretty close. also theres millions of users for both, so why would it mater if one had 500,000 vs 1,000,000/ according to your logic if wii online had more users than both psn and xbl, then it is the better online service.

again thats the past, and it still doesnt prove that xbox is better. which this whole argument seems to be about anyway. a game library is dramitically swinging in ps3's favor. also it doesnt mater ive netfix was on xbox 1st (it was on my pc 1st for that mater) ps3 has it and its better on it, another reason why i say ps3 is better.

so kinect is unique because of sales.  nice to know, and since when does sales= guality. and dont you think a $500 million marking budget had a lot to do with it. i couldnt eat cereal, go to burger king or watch tv without seeing something about kinect. id much rather play games like killzone with motion controller and have the ability to play pet the tiger games than be forced to play pet the tiger.

really a remote isnt really important, though it would be nice. you can use a contoller just as easy, and that still doesnt take away from ps3 being the 2nd best bluray player on the market only being bested by one that is twice the cost.

also wifi is important (though i previously never calimed it was) but unfotunately many americans are ignorant (not stupid) and probably didnt realize wifi on xbox cost >$100 and was free for ps3. also perception is key as to why xbl is so succseful and why people are still willing to pay more ($60) they think they are paying for better and more features(they pay to use their own internet connection to play a game that uses you as the server) people to this day still claim xbl is superior because when they play on psn they lag or its slow but not on xbl (even though as we know that has nothing to do with the networks but rather the games it self).

pretty much all youve said was xbox had better games when the ps3 launched in 2006, netfix was on xbox 1st, and xbl and kinect are great and better bc a lot of people have it.

and ive said people buy the system that everyone else has, and that ps3 is better because of said features

Wrong.

I want to add these to your debate. They're pretty interesting.

i found out what people are paying for to get xbl, its to get exclusive Halo Reach map packs. lol



AussieGecko on 04 February 2011
osamanobama said:

i dont have to list a spec sheet do I? i thought it was excepted that ps3 has better hardware.

have u seen a list of exclusives for each system that has 85 or better on metacritic. (sure there may be some niche games or games that have lower meta than that ,that 360 that you like better than whats on ps3, but on talking about games that have broad appeal and are accepted by most reviewers as being good)

make your own damn list you are making the claim. You keep asking me to bring proof into this or my experience yet you have done zilch. Get some sources or dont argue something you dont know



 

Bet with Conegamer and Doobie_wop 

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3879752