Why is it in these threads that the OP always replies to himself before anyone else does?
Anyway, Sony is awesome, just misconstrued on many issues.
"Man is born free but is everywhere in chains" - Rousseau
Why is it in these threads that the OP always replies to himself before anyone else does?
Anyway, Sony is awesome, just misconstrued on many issues.
"Man is born free but is everywhere in chains" - Rousseau
| ChronotriggerJM said: @The J man, Fun: something that provides mirth or amusement. I believe fun is what you make of it, and yes Home is fun ^_^ What if I don't think the service is worth $250 additional dollars for 5 years of gaming :P Your "opinion" that live is worth the "chump change" is what it is, and opinion, just like mine is. Your opinion that Home sucks = your opinion My opinion that Home > Xbox live = my opinion. We could be related! |
If $3.50 a month was a strain on a balance book then yes it is an opinion , but as it isnt a strain then no it is fact that $3.50 a month is chump change.
And the J man doesnt understand where your Home>xbl thing comes from. Not even the strongest sony fanboy would even suggest that.
N64 is the ONLY console of the fifth generation!!!
jesus kung fu magic said:
If $3.50 a month was a strain on a balance book then yes it is an opinion , but as it isnt a strain then no it is fact that $3.50 a month is chump change. And the J man doesnt understand where your Home>xbl thing comes from. Not even the strongest sony fanboy would even suggest that.
|
If the measly 3.50 a month seemed worth it, I wouldn't mind. But my personal OPINION of live is that it's utter garbage from the ground up ^_^ Why should I spend $50 a year for only a few select games that I'd end up playing online, of which probably have higher player counts and less lag on the PS3 version? It's a complete sham and I'm not going to give Microsoft money that they didn't deserve. It's principle :P
And considering that Home is a service, and lets me talk to new/people I don't know, OR talk to friends. Then yeah, I'll be the most rabid fanboy ever and say that Home to me beats the shit out of live :P Because I'll tell you that I've certainly enjoyed Home a hell of a lot more than I've ever enjoyed "live".
From 0 to KICKASS in .stupid seconds.
YES INDEED THEY ARE!!!!
*Al Bundy's My Hero*


*Al Bundy For President*
Waiting On GT7!!!
PSN ID: Acidfacekiller
| CMoney said: Sony is NOT awesome - They bragged about the ps3 being backwards compatible then they removed it. They bragged about the ps3 having the most powerful processor and graphics and they were proven wrong by IBM which makes both the cell and xbox 360 triple core processor. Sony touted Home as a groundbreaking virtual world, but home is nothing more than a dull and boring second life rip-off. Sony is just another company trying to make money. |
Cell IS more powerful. So you can ebtter understand, look at the PS3 games and 360 games. They look about the same (talking about multi-plat games). then look at the exclusives, MGS4 won bestgraphics in a console game of 2008. Killzone 2 also has better graphics than most if not al games already released on the PS3.
Now, let's say I'm wrong about MGS4 and KZ2 and those games don't look the same. The console with the Cell Processor, 256mb of RAM and 256mb graphics card is delivering same graphics as the 360, which has 512mb of RAM and a video card I believe of also 512mb (don't know the VRAM of the 360 but I believe it¡s 512mb).

ChronotriggerJM said:
If the measly 3.50 a month seemed worth it, I wouldn't mind. But my personal OPINION of live is that it's utter garbage from the ground up ^_^ Why should I spend $50 a year for only a few select games that I'd end up playing online, of which probably have higher player counts and less lag on the PS3 version? It's a complete sham and I'm not going to give Microsoft money that they didn't deserve. It's principle :P And considering that Home is a service, and lets me talk to new/people I don't know, OR talk to friends. Then yeah, I'll be the most rabid fanboy ever and say that Home to me beats the shit out of live :P Because I'll tell you that I've certainly enjoyed Home a hell of a lot more than I've ever enjoyed "live".
|
@j chronotrigger is right. Everything is what you make it. If you only focus on the negative, that's what you'll see. It's a service meant to inspire people to talk to and meet new people.. and that's what's happening.
Pete_Beast said:
Cell IS more powerful. So you can ebtter understand, look at the PS3 games and 360 games. They look about the same (talking about multi-plat games). then look at the exclusives, MGS4 won bestgraphics in a console game of 2008. Killzone 2 also has better graphics than most if not al games already released on the PS3.
Now, let's say I'm wrong about MGS4 and KZ2 and those games don't look the same. The console with the Cell Processor, 256mb of RAM and 256mb graphics card is delivering same graphics as the 360, which has 512mb of RAM and a video card I believe of also 512mb (don't know the VRAM of the 360 but I believe it¡s 512mb). |
Gears 2 won best graphics in 2007,Legend of Zelda got a 10 in graphics back in the day,what does that mean Cell has nothing to do with GRAPHICS.
And i believe that MGS4 would look better on 360,With 4-5 disc acourse,but the textures would look better.
Wow this thread derailed in a hurry. To the ops original point, Sony is great.
Both Home and NXE are failures (In my Opinion). Both services shipped without promised features. Where is the media sharing NXE/Home and where are the 3D trophies?
Thanks for the input, Jeff.
@Garnett, I'm not sure textures have much to do with Cell or Xenos, it would be more in the GPU no? I know that blu-disc however can hold much larger and a way more diversified amount of textures ;) If anything use Uncharted as proof of that. Some of the textures in that game were almost too good >_>;;;
And as far as I know, gears 2 only took best graphics from a few sources. MGS4 did a pretty clean sweep this year as far as I know.
From 0 to KICKASS in .stupid seconds.