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

Forums - Microsoft - Why Havent you Played B3YOND? (X-360 owners only)

blizzid on 27 January 2009
Signalstar said:
To people claiming they dont want a $400 console, you do know what the launch price of the 360 was dont you?

 

$400 was worth it to play the entire library. $400 is not worth to play just the exclusives. In other words, if I didn't already own an Xbox 360, then I'd see $400 as a reasonable price. Of course, in that case I'd still opt for the $300 Xbox 360 over the $400 PS3. If I was at all interested in Blu-ray I'd see the PS3 as the better deal, but I'm not.



Around the Network
Signalstar on 27 January 2009

Yeah but its total BS that people think $400 is an unexcusable amount to pay. When the 360 launched that looked ideal next to the $600 PS3(Which I bought). The price came down $100 for the 360 and $200 for the PS3.

PS3 is still the high end console on the market only $100 more expensive than the 360 and $150 more than the Wii.

I doubt it would change when the price of the PS3 dropped they need an ecxuse so they go for price first.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1gWECYYOSo

Please Watch/Share this video so it gets shown in Hollywood.

luisgvm on 27 January 2009
ZenfoldorVGI said:

Screw it.

You know what I think is a bad console?

The Playstation 3.

The first reason is simple. Sony, the company behind the machine, decided that the brand was strong enough that they would be able to saddle it with another, lesser brand from an unrelated arm of the company, and consumers would still buy it.

They said, "Remember the PS2!? Well, now we have the playstation 3...except you have to buy this new thing we invented, Blu-Ray, if you want to buy one. It's 199 extra and completely needless. We're only adding it on because we know you wouldn't buy it otherwise, and we think that you will buy our console based on brand alone, regardless of price point."

Well, unfortunately we did buy it. Barely. Just enough to raise the BR brand, while the PS brand sunk, and sunk, and sunk.

In fact, all of the 3rd party franchises that use to be saddled to the Playstation brand, didn't have anymore room to ride, thanks to the monumental Blu-Ray blunder. They went multiplat.

On top of this horrible, terrible, affront to gamers, called Blu-Ray, Sony also had the nerve to release exactly 0 good exclusive games for the first year of the console, which was around 600 USD. The console blew chunks, then, worse than any console ever. It was the worst console on the market, ever. It sucked. The Wii blew it away. Yes, yes it did. Zelda and Galaxy destroyed the PS3 library, and the price was once again, much, much cheaper.

Now, two years after the horrible launch, the console is getting some good exclusives. However, it is still bundled with the useless BR player, and its back catalog of games is still hovering around the "shit" classification. Yet, it stubbornly remains at the 400 dollar plus 50 dollars sales tax pricepoint.

Now, I'm being asked to buy the console, immediately before an obvious pricecut, by Sony fanboys, who don't care about me and my value, but instead just about the extra sale...based solely on the promise that MGS4/LBP, 2 relatively niche games, are great, and the upcoming PS3 exclusives might be great as well.

F that.

The console is past tense to me. Its greatness can never match the PS2, and it would take years to catch the Xbox 360, which itself already has a fantastic library, with multiplats that are better than their PS3 counterparts, at a price point of 199 USDollars, and which doesn't force me to buy, support, or have anything to do with a needless, pointless, and luxurious peripheral that I don't need, want, or understand.

I think playing beyond, before the price cut, is ignorant. I think it has been ignorant since the system launched, and I think it will probably still be ignorant after the price cut as well. The people who have bought the console, imho, have been cheated, and overpaid for an inferior product. They have been made pawns of a marketing scheme, and bought an expensive item based on brand instead of quality and common sense.

Why didn't I play beyond?

Because I thought before.

This thread must be a f'n joke.

 

i agree with you in most parts i think that sony was really arrogant and ignorant respecting the ps3 and it kinda deserves whats happening right now and i believe that the ps3 will never be as great as the ps2 but i think you need to be a little bit more objective i mean theres have to be at least one thing that you think its good about the ps3 right? and i disagree with you with the part of the gaming library i think that the ps3 have a great gaming library i dont think its "shit" i think its a solid gaming library and in the end i want ps3 to have success because i love the playstation brand and i always enjoyed so much with the ps1 and ps2 and i am sure that the brand bring great moments to each one of us and i dont want it to disapear or die, even if i would hate the console or is the worst conesole i would still want it to succeed because i once liked the psbrand and give me good moments before. and you dont know what the future hold for us maybe the ps3 will have things in the future that you will like and you will end up loving the ps3 or hating it more jajaja.



Gnizmo on 27 January 2009
Signalstar said:
Yeah but its total BS that people think $400 is an unexcusable amount to pay. When the 360 launched that looked ideal next to the $600 PS3(Which I bought). The price came down $100 for the 360 and $200 for the PS3.

PS3 is still the high end console on the market only $100 more expensive than the 360 and $150 more than the Wii.

I doubt it would change when the price of the PS3 dropped they need an ecxuse so they go for price first.

It is not BS. It is just the way things are. I still think more than $200 for a system without a game is too much. Hell more than $200 with a game even gives me pause and makes me want to wait for a price drop. Some people just arent enticed by the PS3's game library. People's taste in games varies wildly.



Starcraft 2 ID: Gnizmo 229

luisgvm on 27 January 2009
Gnizmo said:
Signalstar said:
Yeah but its total BS that people think $400 is an unexcusable amount to pay. When the 360 launched that looked ideal next to the $600 PS3(Which I bought). The price came down $100 for the 360 and $200 for the PS3.

PS3 is still the high end console on the market only $100 more expensive than the 360 and $150 more than the Wii.

I doubt it would change when the price of the PS3 dropped they need an ecxuse so they go for price first.

It is not BS. It is just the way things are. I still think more than $200 for a system without a game is too much. Hell more than $200 with a game even gives me pause and makes me want to wait for a price drop. Some people just arent enticed by the PS3's game library. People's taste in games varies wildly.

and i guees thats why they have a 360 or a wii instead of a ps3. the ps3 owners say they bought a ps3 instead of a 360 because they like the game library more and viceversa.

 



Around the Network
Groucho on 27 January 2009

The idea of a 360 without a HDD shocks me. I know its possible, but man... who would go there?  I'm upset my Wii doesn't have a HDD, or even the option to add one -- I never would have touched a 360 if it didn't have one.

Do we have any numbers on HDD add-ons sold, relative to Arcades sold?



NJ5 on 27 January 2009
Groucho said:
The idea of a 360 without a HDD shocks me. I know its possible, but man... who would go there?

Do we have any numbers on HDD add-ons sold, relative to Arcades sold?

If you don't connect your 360 to the Internet, the HDD is pretty useless. Now you can use it for the optional installs, but I'm sure many people don't care.

Numbers would be interesting, unfortunately I've never seen any.

 



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

Branko2166 on 27 January 2009
ZenfoldorVGI said:

Screw it.

You know what I think is a bad console?

The Playstation 3.

The first reason is simple. Sony, the company behind the machine, decided that the brand was strong enough that they would be able to saddle it with another, lesser brand from an unrelated arm of the company, and consumers would still buy it.

They said, "Remember the PS2!? Well, now we have the playstation 3...except you have to buy this new thing we invented, Blu-Ray, if you want to buy one. It's 199 extra and completely needless. We're only adding it on because we know you wouldn't buy it otherwise, and we think that you will buy our console based on brand alone, regardless of price point."

Well, unfortunately we did buy it. Barely. Just enough to raise the BR brand, while the PS brand sunk, and sunk, and sunk.

In fact, all of the 3rd party franchises that use to be saddled to the Playstation brand, didn't have anymore room to ride, thanks to the monumental Blu-Ray blunder. They went multiplat.

On top of this horrible, terrible, affront to gamers, called Blu-Ray, Sony also had the nerve to release exactly 0 good exclusive games for the first year of the console, which was around 600 USD. The console blew chunks, then, worse than any console ever. It was the worst console on the market, ever. It sucked. The Wii blew it away. Yes, yes it did. Zelda and Galaxy destroyed the PS3 library, and the price was once again, much, much cheaper.

Now, two years after the horrible launch, the console is getting some good exclusives. However, it is still bundled with the useless BR player, and its back catalog of games is still hovering around the "shit" classification. Yet, it stubbornly remains at the 400 dollar plus 50 dollars sales tax pricepoint.

Now, I'm being asked to buy the console, immediately before an obvious pricecut, by Sony fanboys, who don't care about me and my value, but instead just about the extra sale...based solely on the promise that MGS4/LBP, 2 relatively niche games, are great, and the upcoming PS3 exclusives might be great as well.

F that.

The console is past tense to me. Its greatness can never match the PS2, and it would take years to catch the Xbox 360, which itself already has a fantastic library, with multiplats that are better than their PS3 counterparts, at a price point of 199 USDollars, and which doesn't force me to buy, support, or have anything to do with a needless, pointless, and luxurious peripheral that I don't need, want, or understand.

I think playing beyond, before the price cut, is ignorant. I think it has been ignorant since the system launched, and I think it will probably still be ignorant after the price cut as well. The people who have bought the console, imho, have been cheated, and overpaid for an inferior product. They have been made pawns of a marketing scheme, and bought an expensive item based on brand instead of quality and common sense.

Why didn't I play beyond?

Because I thought before.

This thread must be a f'n joke.

Interesting post although ultimately it comes down to preference. I do agree that the PS3 launch price was too high and that by including Blu-ray in every PS3 the playstation brand took a pounding because of the increased price. This led to lower sales and consequently less suport from 3rd parties. Combined with its complex architecture which initially made it very difficult to program for and Microsoft's agressive courting of 3rd parties the PS3 took a serious beating.

Now where I mostly disagree and again it's preference is that the PS3 is a bad console. Although it did have a slow start, right now with the exception of RPG's the PS3 has a decent line up of games which most people enjoy.

I guess because you're a huge RPG fan you are disappointed and annoyed by the PS3, especially after the glory days of the PS1 and PS2 which is understandable.

Looks at it this way though, because the PS3 is getting it's ass handed to it in sales it will force Sony to compete harder and release more games across all genres. And if not right now, in a couple of years when the price is ~$250 you may want to pick it up. In the meantime you have plenty of rpgs to play on the 360 so it's all good.

 

 



 

 

mrstickball on 27 January 2009

NJ5 - There are numbers. Before the Arcade came out, and skewed data, 95% of all X360 owners had a HDD (therefore 50% of X360 Core users covered to HDD).

I'd imagine that users have HDDs on 65-70% of systems now.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

Godot on 27 January 2009

Maybe because most of the interesting games are already on the 360. I mean, most of us would most likely buy a PS3 for the few exclusives that are on the system but we're not rich. I know that a lot of people on this forum are and can just spend that money on the 3 consoles (even for a Wii that collects dust). Unfortunately, we need money for a lot of things other than video games.



How many cups of darkness have I drank over the years? Even I don't know...