MikeB said: @ Ausfalcon Its entirely a different animal to criticize those who are merely doing the same thing you often do yourself. I don't agree, I do not resort to name calling or being otherwise abusive towards someone sharing his or her opinion which I do not share. "cute" comment Cute is an abusive word? The point was there is really no need for him to try to change my opinion. In due time it will show who has been more correct and even that by itself isn't that important.

Just a couple off the top of my head, since they involved the famous "drunk incident": 

http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/post.php?id=2101159 

http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/post.php?id=2101265 

I said you used "cute" to try to provoke.  billsalias addressed it very gracefully to his credit.  And beyond that he was trying to logically discuss something with you, he even conceded some conditions in order to simplify your exchange (in your favor).  But you could not hack that and so you did what you did instead.

You are right, who is more correct on predicitions here is not important.  But between you and billsalias it was clear who really embodied that attitude more (it wasn't you by a long shot).

@ Ausfalcon

Famous?

You know, that comment was provoked. "Guilding light" joined (around the exact same time as you I should add!) this website just like you, just to troll against me, but he used slightly more zealous and offensive methods than you. The other comment was plain sarcasm as nightsurge claimed to see no insults outed and thus I repeated one of the insults directed against me in a sarcastic manner.

I agree, billsalias isn't just a troll like you two guys. But he was going around in circles, he already got his answers, going on any further would not alter things.

MikeB said: @ Ausfalcon Just a couple off the top of my head, since they involved the famous "drunk incident": Famous? You know, that comment was provoked. "Guilding light" joined (around the exact same time as you I should add!) this website just like you just to troll against me, but he used slightly more zealous and offensive methods than you. The other comment was plain sarcasm as nightsurge claimed to see no insults outed and thus I repeated one of the insults directed against me in a sarcastic manner. I agree, billsalias isn't just a troll like you two guys. But he was going around in circles, he already got his answers, going on any further would not alter things.

Infamous would have been more accurate, but then, you would have likely turned it into you own form of a PS3 advertisement. *sigh*

Anyway, we have now established you do indeed do what you said you don't. But in typical MikeB fashion you say you have an excuse. Of course Guiding Light I suppose if asked might have a different opinion than you on the subject of provocation. And we just went through reviewing your own attempt at provocation of another member, simply because you got annoyed that *you felt* he was going around in circles. We did not even address some of the others, one of which referred to others not having as many brain cells as you (somewhat funny, considering at the time your brain was losing a bunch from your holiday binge).

The substantive point to the conversation between you and I is you fibbed, you do resort to such bad behavior yourself.

Now, lets address this:

""Guilding light" joined (around the exact same time as you I should add!)"

As I recall, the last time you tried to infer he and I were the same person when pressed on it you acted as if you were not claiming that at all and went into one of your sentence structure semantics games. I even then afforded you the benefit of the doubt. Now that implication is back, though I suspect you are just trying to recycle that red herring.

I think I've made my point, and so far I think you've shown us you are not looking to try to change any time soon.  So I'll bow out of the thread now and allow you the last word if you wish.

MikeB said: @ kowenicki The only point of that comment was some strange worries Sony was in danger of bankrupting, nothing more nothing less. They have a lot of additional assets, if they buy back shares and pay back all other 3rd party investments they still have a surplus of 50 billion USD worth in assets. Of course you prefer to ignore the core of the comment. In theory could, not in reality would. It would not make sense, Sony would then need to scale down dramatically.

Source????

MikeB said: @ nightsurge Carl is correct, you said you had seen nothing, so I posted a link. Ugh, originally I said Natal overshadowed everything for the month following E3. Milo was overhyped, IMO they significantly overpromised. Initially I stated Natal seemed a very promising and interesting project, but afterwards journalists who had gone through a demo wrote about the real state of afairs. It depends on how forgiving people will be, but IMO Natal looks like it's not going to impress. Hype may well trigger initial good sales, but I am sceptical. IMO Sony's approach seems far more functional for gaming, incredibly more accurate and also more fun than what Microsoft has shown so far. Milo I think is mostly just vaporware at this point, the motion detection seemed inaccurate and prone to delay, the hand gesture stuff seems OK for navigating, but provides nothing really new.

Hmmmm... so that's why 99% of journalists and news coverage was blown away by Natal?  And all those "Milo is a fake!" articles were proven wrong?

Sony's approach is even more limited than Natal!  You need 2 wands just to track 2 points in 3D space, while Natal can track 48 different points or more.  You also need the PSEye which is a limited and old technology.  You'd need 8 wands to have 4 person multiplayer, with only one Natal needed.  You still can't move your character around with Sony Motion because there is no analog sticks.  Natal can do any of the overlay stuff Sony's motion could do.  I don't know how waving your arms around ONLY can be more fun than using your entire body for a game..... The only valid argument you have is the accuracy and delay claim, but I'm sure most of that will be highly improved by the time Natal is officially released.

Basically all Sony tried to do was directly copy Nintendo using their outdated PS Eye technology, so they get a mix of Natal and Wii controls, but end up lacking behind both the other motion technologies.

@ MrNathanDrake

Use Wikipedia or google.

MrNathanDrake said: MikeB said: @ kowenicki The only point of that comment was some strange worries Sony was in danger of bankrupting, nothing more nothing less. They have a lot of additional assets, if they buy back shares and pay back all other 3rd party investments they still have a surplus of 50 billion USD worth in assets. Of course you prefer to ignore the core of the comment. In theory could, not in reality would. It would not make sense, Sony would then need to scale down dramatically. Source????

He has none.  He's making things up and pulling numbers from thin air.  I believe he was proven wrong about this in the thread that he actually brought it up in by many other posters.  Sad really.  Poor poor MikeB.

Also, Mike, don't ignore my post above this one!

@nightsurge

Source???

Use Wikipedia or google. LOL!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony

Compare total equity and total assets with rivals (like Microsoft and consumer electronics companies)