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

Forums - Sales - Why Sony will always beat MS at making a console.

madskillz on 30 January 2008
doom102575 said:
rocketpig said:
Mr. Mafoo, I think overall you're on the right track but you're forgetting two very important things:

Until the 360 released, the two most unreliable consoles in history (to my knowledge, at least) were the PS1 and PS2.

While Sony seems to have gotten it right with the PS3, it hasn't always been that way (though every other Sony product I have owned over the years has been super-reliable).

I think the most unreliable console ever made would have been the original NES I know me and many friends had tons of problems with that system. I am sure there is actually no way to find out although I wish companies had to report repair #'s. Also great post many good points in it.


Well, I still have mine - one good blow, rest a game on top of another game and  you are fine ...



Around the Network
Retrasado on 30 January 2008

Interesting post.
btw everybody, I'm pretty sure when he said "software" he was referring to the GUI/firmware, not the games



Not trying to be a fanboy. Of course, it's hard when you own the best console eve... dang it

gebx on 30 January 2008

@OP

The PS3's biggest setback was the cost, so I'm not sure why you would say thats one of Sony's strong point. You can't argue about the PS3's reliability, its top notch unlike the early models of the PSX and PS2.

@Squall_Leonhart

I'll tell you whats good about this thread and why its not a flamefest like you predicted

1) He doesn't make up fake numbers/facts

2) PS3 trolls havn't really posted yet (well except for MrMafoo)

3) Its an opinion thread (not a "IMO, THIS IS FACT") with valid points

4) He's not "blind", he addresses what the 360 does right and PS3 shortfalls

5) it's legible and not filled with leet speak



Proud Member of GAIBoWS (Gamers Against Irrational Bans of Weezy & Squilliam)

                   

elnino334 on 30 January 2008

The only system I ever had fail was the 360. I had all the systems after the nes except the saturn, ps1 and gamecube.



madskillz on 30 January 2008
elnino334 said:
The only system I ever had fail was the 360. I had all the systems after the nes except the saturn, ps1 and gamecube.

I've had a two PS2s, my 360 and a Gameboy PHAIL on me ...

The 360, however, was yanked across the room when my son ran past it once. 



Around the Network
ymeaga1n on 30 January 2008
madskillz said:

The 360, however, was yanked across the room when my son ran past it once. 


I hate when they do that! My nephew did it when I got my SNES. I was so mad, i damn near I cried haha




madskillz on 30 January 2008
ymeaga1n said:
madskillz said:

The 360, however, was yanked across the room when my son ran past it once.


I hate when they do that! My nephew did it when I got my SNES. I was so mad, i damn near I cried haha


I didn't whip me, but I banned him from the room for like a week or two. He doesn't run anymore! 



Dno on 30 January 2008
madskillz said:
MrMafoo said:

At everything I stated, Sony is in a totally different league as MS. It’s like a pro football team competing against High School team. This is all new to MS, and something Sony has been excelling at for decades. The cost of the PS3 will reach $100 long before the cost of the 360 will. The reliability of the PS3 will outperform the 360 for its entire lifetime. It currently has more features: Built in Wi-Fi, built in HD Movie Player, Bluetooth, upgradeable HD, HDMI (now all 360’s sold have it). It’s quieter, and looks more like a piece of home theater equipment (although that’s subjective).

If the competition was to make the best software, MS would win. But at the end of the day, what these companies expect you to buy, is a piece of hardware. MS, today anyway, cannot remotely compete with Sony when it comes to consumer electronics. They can make something great that they deliver on day one. But the qualities needed to make that a successful product over the life of its usefulness, MS has not yet figured out.


Two things - first, if MS is a high school team, they'd be investigated because there's no way on God's green earth that a prep school could hang with a horrible college team, much less a pro team. Right now, it's the first half of the basketball game, and Sony is doing little more than trading baskets. I could see if Sony came out in Nov. 2006 and just pummelled MS like Ninny did. They did little more than make a few free throws. Near the end of the first quarter, they were getting buried and finally woke up. They started a brief run, but soon MS answered and now, it's still a 40-point lead for MS.

The second part is - what makes a console a success. Who said the 360 wasn't useful? I watch digital downloads a lot on it. I can also chat with my buddies on MSN Messenger without having to go back to my PC. If they had a Web browser, I'd never need to get on my PC unless I need to use Photoshop. And I enjoyed having the option of no having to buy a hard drive, not having to buy a next-gen HD player AND not having to buy a wifi adapter unless I wanted to. Guess what - for $199, I can get a 360 and a few bucks more and I can be gaming in the next-gen. No so with the PS3. And really, all a person is getting is the potential of an awesome system in the future.

In the end, the 360 is losing to the PS3 by just 20K to 30K a week. At that rate, it would be take 4 to 5 years to not only catch the 360, but hopes the 360 just stops selling altogether.

In the end, it's your opinion and not mine, but the numbers don't lie ... 


your right numbers dont lie and sony sold more units its 1st year then microsoft and is starting 2008 with more units sold. ps3 will be n second and when the price drops and blu-ray is the standard it will kill xbox even tho it is starting to already.



hunter_alien on 30 January 2008
twesterm said:
rocketpig said:

Until the 360 released, the two most unreliable consoles in history (to my knowledge, at least) were the PS1 and PS2.

Dam, beat me to it.


 Well , I dont know about you guys , but except a Dualshock that I broke , by smashing it to the ground , I never got any issues with any of my PS consoles ...



Vote the Mayor for Mayor!

madskillz on 30 January 2008
Dno said:
madskillz said:
MrMafoo said:

At everything I stated, Sony is in a totally different league as MS. It’s like a pro football team competing against High School team. This is all new to MS, and something Sony has been excelling at for decades. The cost of the PS3 will reach $100 long before the cost of the 360 will. The reliability of the PS3 will outperform the 360 for its entire lifetime. It currently has more features: Built in Wi-Fi, built in HD Movie Player, Bluetooth, upgradeable HD, HDMI (now all 360’s sold have it). It’s quieter, and looks more like a piece of home theater equipment (although that’s subjective).

If the competition was to make the best software, MS would win. But at the end of the day, what these companies expect you to buy, is a piece of hardware. MS, today anyway, cannot remotely compete with Sony when it comes to consumer electronics. They can make something great that they deliver on day one. But the qualities needed to make that a successful product over the life of its usefulness, MS has not yet figured out.


Two things - first, if MS is a high school team, they'd be investigated because there's no way on God's green earth that a prep school could hang with a horrible college team, much less a pro team. Right now, it's the first half of the basketball game, and Sony is doing little more than trading baskets. I could see if Sony came out in Nov. 2006 and just pummelled MS like Ninny did. They did little more than make a few free throws. Near the end of the first quarter, they were getting buried and finally woke up. They started a brief run, but soon MS answered and now, it's still a 40-point lead for MS.

The second part is - what makes a console a success. Who said the 360 wasn't useful? I watch digital downloads a lot on it. I can also chat with my buddies on MSN Messenger without having to go back to my PC. If they had a Web browser, I'd never need to get on my PC unless I need to use Photoshop. And I enjoyed having the option of no having to buy a hard drive, not having to buy a next-gen HD player AND not having to buy a wifi adapter unless I wanted to. Guess what - for $199, I can get a 360 and a few bucks more and I can be gaming in the next-gen. No so with the PS3. And really, all a person is getting is the potential of an awesome system in the future.

In the end, the 360 is losing to the PS3 by just 20K to 30K a week. At that rate, it would be take 4 to 5 years to not only catch the 360, but hopes the 360 just stops selling altogether.

In the end, it's your opinion and not mine, but the numbers don't lie ...


your right numbers dont lie and sony sold more units its 1st year then microsoft and is starting 2008 with more units sold. ps3 will be n second and when the price drops and blu-ray is the standard it will kill xbox even tho it is starting to already.


Your argument is rather flawed. The 360 was supply constrained - the PS3 was never constrained. Two weeks after it was released, I saw several in the wild. It was late Spring of 2006 before I spotted a 360. You can search the Web and find what I've said to be true.

Based on the fact that there were more PS3s available since launch than the 360 means more folks could buy one vs. not buying one.

Regardless, I think a lot of folks are waiting for the consoles to reach $199. Just watch sales soar after that ...