MikeB said: @ Bitmap Frogs You will *never* acknowledge anything from microsoft and will *always* spin the sony way. They are good at marketing (although often misinformative, misleading and inaccurate), probably better than Sony this gen so far (which IMO has been pretty sucky at times). FYI, at the beginning when the 360 launched I said that I thought it was a good game console (much better than I think now). I bought the 360 for the launch game Kameo, which I still think is a good game. The Gears of War hype, made me even buy this game, but it ended up not really being my piece of cake. I was never really involved in PS2 vs XBox arguments. I think everyone is entitled of an opinion, informed opinions come with experience.

 

If I were to say that at 199$ the Arcade totally demolishes the 399$ ps3 as far as gaming value is considered, your answer would be?

You don't have neither an informed opinion nor a middle ground, Mike. You've made your mind that Sony is better somewhat and that's the way your posts roll.

What kind of question is that? Only meant to draw a certain response that you can then bury, I presume.

The most given answer when someone (sony fanboy or not) says "the PS3 is holding up nicely against a 199 console", is "no, it isn't, the arcade only amounts to 1/10 of consoles sold for the xbox".

So trying to lure someone to answer in a certain way with this question is just plain wrong.

 

edit: and if you wish to "get" someone on the "gaming value", that's an elusive concept, as people will be willing to put down 399 for a console that offers more to their liking, just as much as people will put up 199 for a concept that suits them better.

papflesje said: If I were to say that at 199$ the Arcade totally demolishes the 399$ ps3 as far as gaming value is considered, your answer would be? What kind of question is that? Only meant to draw a certain response that you can then bury, I presume. The most given answer when someone (sony fanboy or not) says "the PS3 is holding up nicely against a 199 console", is "no, it isn't, the arcade only amounts to 1/10 of consoles sold for the xbox". So trying to lure someone to answer in a certain way with this question is just plain wrong.   edit: and if you wish to "get" someone on the "gaming value", that's an elusive concept, as people will be willing to put down 399 for a console that offers more to their liking, just as much as people will put up 199 for a concept that suits them better.

 

It is undeniable that for half the price the Arcade is a better value than the ps3. It's 199$ entry-barrier to have the whole 360 library available (sans two MMO's). You even get a memcard big enough to store several XBLA games along your saves.

But he won't acknowledge it because he can't. There's no open-mind, no informed opinion, no middle-ground.

@ bitmap: That's your own view. Others (like I've said) will have no problem with putting down more money for what they believe to be better value.

Some may have enough with what the arcade has to offer. Others will want blu-ray, a changeable HD, sony-exclusives.

What - according to you - forces someone to say that the arcade is better value if they do not want what the arcade has to offer?



Or am I not allowed to like candy too because you think that cookies are better?

De gustibus et coloribus non est disputandum.

@ Bitmap Frogs

That's then your opinion, but I don't share this opinion. I see nothing wrong with this.



In what way better? Better quality products, sure I think this. For generating profits Microsoft is better maintaining its monopolies. IMO a company like Microsoft is only possible in the states. Sony could for instance have been a Dutch company, like Philips, but Microsoft would IMO have run into significant legal issues.

I think you are confusing with me thinking the PS3 is better specced than the 360 and me thinking Sony being more competent with regard to entertainment offerings, but that says nothing about the potential of Microsoft buying companies like Bungie (Macintosh / Linux devs) or Rare (Nintendo devs) or investing into 3rd party companies like Epic (multi-platform) to create quality content.

papflesje said: @ bitmap: That's your own view. Others (like I've said) will have no problem with putting down more money for what they believe to be better value. Some may have enough with what the arcade has to offer. Others will want blu-ray, a changeable HD, sony-exclusives. What - according to you - forces someone to say that the arcade is better value if they do not want what the arcade has to offer? Or am I not allowed to like candy too because you think that cookies are better? De gustibus et coloribus non est disputandum.

 

Sure, and as far as multimedia goes blue-ray is a tremendous asset. The pseudo-HD low bit-rate stuff distributed via XBL is miles away from Blue-Ray and not a proper substitute. There's no denying that.

But the question is strictly about gaming value.

Some people may love certain PSN titles, may love the sony exclusives and will want to put down money for that. Does that diminish its gaming value?

The PS2 has the largest library, still you will find people who absolutely adore the GC and the Xbox. So?

Your question remains flawed. You wanted MikeB to admit that your vision about the consoles was right, and if he didn't, you could say "you close-minded individual".

You shouldn't have asked him a question. You should've just said him what he had to say to prove his "open-mindedness". (Not that I particularly think he's open-minded, all I 've seen from him is PS3

MikeB said: @ Bitmap Frogs If I were to say that at 199$ the Arcade totally demolishes the 399$ ps3 as far as gaming value is considered, your answer would be? That that's your opinion, but I don't share this opinion. You don't have neither an informed opinion nor a middle ground, Mike. You've made your mind that Sony is better somewhat and that's the way your posts roll. In what way better? Better quality products, sure I think this. For generating profits Microsoft is better maintaining its monopolies. IMO a company like Microsoft is only possible in the states. Sony could for instance have been a Dutch company, like Philips, but Microsoft would IMO have run into significant legal issues. I think you are confusing with me thinking the PS3 is better specced than the 360 and me thinking Sony being more competent with regard to entertainment offerings, but that says nothing about the potential of Microsoft buying companies like Bungie or Rare or investing into 3rd party companies like Epic to create quality content.

 

You don't share the opinion because in your mind there's nothing that can be shared that doesn't end up in making sony better.

And the fact that you just followed on about a totally non-related rant trying to taint MS just cements my conclusion that there's no middle-ground neither open-mindedness to be found in you. Sony held a monopoly last gen and abused it like all monopolies do but that doesn't fact to bother you at all.

 

papflesje said: But the question is strictly about gaming value. Some people may love certain PSN titles, may love the sony exclusives and will want to put down money for that. Does that diminish its gaming value? The PS2 has the largest library, still you will find people who absolutely adore the GC and the Xbox. So? Your question remains flawed. You wanted MikeB to admit that your vision about the consoles was right, and if he didn't, you could say "you close-minded individual". You shouldn't have asked him a question. You should've just said him what he had to say to prove his "open-mindedness". (Not that I particularly think he's open-minded, all I 've seen from him is PS3 <3 indeed, but still, unfair question).

 

The ps2 has a largest library and holds the biggest amount of better games which means it makes it a better gaming value than both the GC and the first Xbox.

The question is not flawed at all. The only flaw is Mike's unability to do anything but spinning things the sony way.

 

The point is and remains: not for everyone, and you cannot expect people to acknowledge that if they truly believe that other systems offer more for them in that regard. Forcing them to do so, says more about you.