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

Forums - Gaming - Inconsistant arguments...

Alic0004 on 23 October 2009
Hapimeses said:
WereKitten said:
I like the dadaism of putting together 1 and 2 (and relative "factual rebuttals") :)

I have to admit to smiling to myself for exactly the same reason. Perhaps, as you allude, this is some sort of commentary on posts of this type, rather than simply another churning of the console-war butter. Nonsensical performance art as forum post, especially when the topic title is taken into account.

 

I'm still trying to figure out how the OP did this.  There's a kind of four-dimensional beauty to the way the contraditions fold back on themselves.

 

Also, note the brilliant double entendre of the title!

 

 

 

 

 



 

Around the Network
ironman on 23 October 2009
theprof00 said:
Like everyone has said before, the 360 has hidden costs, is protected by mainstream cluelessness, and came out a year before any competition. On the hardcore side it has a strong fanbase who NEED their Halo, regardless of how many times they need to get their console repaired.
PS3 sold more consoles on the same timeline as the 360 and continues to even outsell it now, and even though 360 just had a price drop, the boosted sales are virtually gone already.

360 is not a bad system. If there was no PS, I'd have an XB.

That may be, but that is not the arguments I have seen.

@ serephic, nothing really, just wondering why people actually use the failed arguments in the OP...so far, no answers have been given, and a few people actually tried to use a few of the inconsistant arguments...Oh well.



Past Avatar picture!!!

Don't forget your helmet there, Master Chief!

JerCotter7 on 23 October 2009
ironman said:
JerCotter7 said:
ironman said:

FACT: Even XBL uses servers to match people together, you are paying to use those servers (along with other fun little things that come with Gold) Even free Xbox linking programs like XBC use servers to network Xbox's together as a P2P network. What you though that just magically happened? Besides, if paying for the live services are a crime, so is paying for online porn and video streaming services, after all, they all make you pay to use the internet that you already purchase.

I'm pretty sure PSN uses servers too. Don't quote me on that. And you really gotta get a better argument than the video streaming. You're not paying for the streaming. You're paying for the video. If you bought the video then gave it to them and then they charged you it would be the same thing. That being said I would pay for Live if I had a 360 so it doesn't really matter to me. But just get a better argument for it than that.

XD what? I never said PSN didn't use servers, everybody does. Anyway, Video streaming is a perfect argument, you are right that you are paying for the video, but you are also paying for the streaming service.

The way I read it sounded like you were saying that Live uses servers so that's why there is a charge. And since PSN is free it doesn't use servers. Sorry about that. I just think you could find an argument to fit it better than the video streaming one.



theprof00 on 23 October 2009

Those are the arguments I see every time ironman.

People say the 360 is cheaper at retail. It is easier for people to buy because it fits the impulse buy price range. You can easily buy one with half of your average person's weekly paycheck.

The reason that people talk about 360 as being more expensive is because they are trying to inform people who are in the market for a system and are weighing the pros and cons. In the end, 360 is actually more expensive, if you wanted to weigh the pros and cons on an equal footing.


They are related ideas but they are different aspects of the same idea. It's like buying food and trying to figure out how much food you can actually buy. You can say some things are better than others, like organic food over actual amount of food, but the best way to do it is to find out exactly how much of each vitamin,mineral is in each serving and then compare the servings. What you find out in the console example, is that you need to spend more on one type of food (xbox) in order to get the same amount of nutrition in the other food (ps)

 

This doesn't necessarily mean that all the nutrients in the (ps3) are required. It is simply one way to look at it.



ironman on 23 October 2009
JerCotter7 said:
ironman said:
JerCotter7 said:
ironman said:

FACT: Even XBL uses servers to match people together, you are paying to use those servers (along with other fun little things that come with Gold) Even free Xbox linking programs like XBC use servers to network Xbox's together as a P2P network. What you though that just magically happened? Besides, if paying for the live services are a crime, so is paying for online porn and video streaming services, after all, they all make you pay to use the internet that you already purchase.

I'm pretty sure PSN uses servers too. Don't quote me on that. And you really gotta get a better argument than the video streaming. You're not paying for the streaming. You're paying for the video. If you bought the video then gave it to them and then they charged you it would be the same thing. That being said I would pay for Live if I had a 360 so it doesn't really matter to me. But just get a better argument for it than that.

XD what? I never said PSN didn't use servers, everybody does. Anyway, Video streaming is a perfect argument, you are right that you are paying for the video, but you are also paying for the streaming service.

The way I read it sounded like you were saying that Live uses servers so that's why there is a charge. And since PSN is free it doesn't use servers. Sorry about that. I just think you could find an argument to fit it better than the video streaming one.

ok, shoot!



Past Avatar picture!!!

Don't forget your helmet there, Master Chief!

Around the Network
JerCotter7 on 23 October 2009
ironman said:
JerCotter7 said:
ironman said:
JerCotter7 said:
ironman said:

FACT: Even XBL uses servers to match people together, you are paying to use those servers (along with other fun little things that come with Gold) Even free Xbox linking programs like XBC use servers to network Xbox's together as a P2P network. What you though that just magically happened? Besides, if paying for the live services are a crime, so is paying for online porn and video streaming services, after all, they all make you pay to use the internet that you already purchase.

I'm pretty sure PSN uses servers too. Don't quote me on that. And you really gotta get a better argument than the video streaming. You're not paying for the streaming. You're paying for the video. If you bought the video then gave it to them and then they charged you it would be the same thing. That being said I would pay for Live if I had a 360 so it doesn't really matter to me. But just get a better argument for it than that.

XD what? I never said PSN didn't use servers, everybody does. Anyway, Video streaming is a perfect argument, you are right that you are paying for the video, but you are also paying for the streaming service.

The way I read it sounded like you were saying that Live uses servers so that's why there is a charge. And since PSN is free it doesn't use servers. Sorry about that. I just think you could find an argument to fit it better than the video streaming one.

ok, shoot!

I would use petrol as an example. Just because you payed for the car, tires and insurance and whatever else you still have to pay for petrol to use the main "feature" of the car. You can sit in it all you want but to drive it you gotta pay that extra charge.

 

Sorry not so great but I just came up with it off the top of my head haha.



ocnkng on 23 October 2009
ironman said:

So, at risk of sounding like a fanboy, I have noticed a few rather inconsistan arguments on the forums, and was wondering if anybody could shed some light as to why people use them...

1 The PS3 is a cheaper console after adding up all the accesories (new, not used) so why is it behind the 360 in terms of total sales (or perhaps at an earlier time, current sales numbers.)

FACT: The 360 has a lower initial price point, and many consumers don't bother adding up the add-on costs (new).

1. The PS3 is more expensive that the 360, and yet, it is still able to stay relatively close to it in terms of sales (not sure if this was total sales, or sales numbers at any given time.)

FACT: The 360 is a more expensive consle when you add up the cost of add ons (new), and yet it is still ahead.

..........

 

 

Just fixed the first part of your OP, I think now it makes much more sense.

 



 

It is better to die on one's feet

then live on one's knees

ironman on 23 October 2009
JerCotter7 said:
ironman said:
JerCotter7 said:
ironman said:
JerCotter7 said:
ironman said:

FACT: Even XBL uses servers to match people together, you are paying to use those servers (along with other fun little things that come with Gold) Even free Xbox linking programs like XBC use servers to network Xbox's together as a P2P network. What you though that just magically happened? Besides, if paying for the live services are a crime, so is paying for online porn and video streaming services, after all, they all make you pay to use the internet that you already purchase.

I'm pretty sure PSN uses servers too. Don't quote me on that. And you really gotta get a better argument than the video streaming. You're not paying for the streaming. You're paying for the video. If you bought the video then gave it to them and then they charged you it would be the same thing. That being said I would pay for Live if I had a 360 so it doesn't really matter to me. But just get a better argument for it than that.

XD what? I never said PSN didn't use servers, everybody does. Anyway, Video streaming is a perfect argument, you are right that you are paying for the video, but you are also paying for the streaming service.

The way I read it sounded like you were saying that Live uses servers so that's why there is a charge. And since PSN is free it doesn't use servers. Sorry about that. I just think you could find an argument to fit it better than the video streaming one.

ok, shoot!

I would use petrol as an example. Just because you payed for the car, tires and insurance and whatever else you still have to pay for petrol to use the main "feature" of the car. You can sit in it all you want but to drive it you gotta pay that extra charge.

 

Sorry not so great but I just came up with it off the top of my head haha.

I have heard that one used, it's ok, but the streaming services and the porn sites are more relevant. You pay a company so you can use your internet connection to watch a movie, or view porn. How is that any differant than paying a company so you can use your internet conncetion to play online with other people.

Let's simplify it even more,

Streaming/porn: Pay a company so you can use their service.

XBL: Pay a company so you can use their service.

But oh wait...you can't do either without paying for an internet connection!

"Awww crap. Streaming, porn, and XBL are all ripping me off because I already have to pay for my internet service, why should I pay them for the ability to use my internet service!!!"

 



Past Avatar picture!!!

Don't forget your helmet there, Master Chief!

JerCotter7 on 23 October 2009
ironman said:
JerCotter7 said:
ironman said:
JerCotter7 said:
ironman said:
JerCotter7 said:
ironman said:

FACT: Even XBL uses servers to match people together, you are paying to use those servers (along with other fun little things that come with Gold) Even free Xbox linking programs like XBC use servers to network Xbox's together as a P2P network. What you though that just magically happened? Besides, if paying for the live services are a crime, so is paying for online porn and video streaming services, after all, they all make you pay to use the internet that you already purchase.

I'm pretty sure PSN uses servers too. Don't quote me on that. And you really gotta get a better argument than the video streaming. You're not paying for the streaming. You're paying for the video. If you bought the video then gave it to them and then they charged you it would be the same thing. That being said I would pay for Live if I had a 360 so it doesn't really matter to me. But just get a better argument for it than that.

XD what? I never said PSN didn't use servers, everybody does. Anyway, Video streaming is a perfect argument, you are right that you are paying for the video, but you are also paying for the streaming service.

The way I read it sounded like you were saying that Live uses servers so that's why there is a charge. And since PSN is free it doesn't use servers. Sorry about that. I just think you could find an argument to fit it better than the video streaming one.

ok, shoot!

I would use petrol as an example. Just because you payed for the car, tires and insurance and whatever else you still have to pay for petrol to use the main "feature" of the car. You can sit in it all you want but to drive it you gotta pay that extra charge.

 

Sorry not so great but I just came up with it off the top of my head haha.

I have heard that one used, it's ok, but the streaming services and the porn sites are more relevant. You pay a company so you can use your internet connection to watch a movie, or view porn. How is that any differant than paying a company so you can use your internet conncetion to play online with other people.

Let's simplify it even more,

Streaming/porn: Pay a company so you can use their service.

XBL: Pay a company so you can use their service.

But oh wait...you can't do either without paying for an internet connection!

"Awww crap. Streaming, porn, and XBL are all ripping me off because I already have to pay for my internet service, why should I pay them for the ability to use my internet service!!!"

 

See when I pay for something I don't think of the charge as being for streaming. I think of what I'm actually buying when I'm paying for it. IF I payed for porn I wouldn't be thinking about the streaming charge when I'm paying for it. I would be eagerly thinking about the porn I will be watching. So that's why I used petrol as an example. When I personally pay for petrol all I can think of is how much of a ripoff it is. Same thing as the live charge. But either way you have to pay for it and it gets the results you want so you can be happy with it.

 

BTW: This is from a PS3 owner so I'm kind of talking out my ass about live since I have only ever played it on another person's account and not for long. And I also don't pay for porn. Not while it's also available for free.



ironman on 23 October 2009
JerCotter7 said:
ironman said:
JerCotter7 said:
ironman said:
JerCotter7 said:
ironman said:
JerCotter7 said:
ironman said:

FACT: Even XBL uses servers to match people together, you are paying to use those servers (along with other fun little things that come with Gold) Even free Xbox linking programs like XBC use servers to network Xbox's together as a P2P network. What you though that just magically happened? Besides, if paying for the live services are a crime, so is paying for online porn and video streaming services, after all, they all make you pay to use the internet that you already purchase.

I'm pretty sure PSN uses servers too. Don't quote me on that. And you really gotta get a better argument than the video streaming. You're not paying for the streaming. You're paying for the video. If you bought the video then gave it to them and then they charged you it would be the same thing. That being said I would pay for Live if I had a 360 so it doesn't really matter to me. But just get a better argument for it than that.

XD what? I never said PSN didn't use servers, everybody does. Anyway, Video streaming is a perfect argument, you are right that you are paying for the video, but you are also paying for the streaming service.

The way I read it sounded like you were saying that Live uses servers so that's why there is a charge. And since PSN is free it doesn't use servers. Sorry about that. I just think you could find an argument to fit it better than the video streaming one.

ok, shoot!

I would use petrol as an example. Just because you payed for the car, tires and insurance and whatever else you still have to pay for petrol to use the main "feature" of the car. You can sit in it all you want but to drive it you gotta pay that extra charge.

 

Sorry not so great but I just came up with it off the top of my head haha.

I have heard that one used, it's ok, but the streaming services and the porn sites are more relevant. You pay a company so you can use your internet connection to watch a movie, or view porn. How is that any differant than paying a company so you can use your internet conncetion to play online with other people.

Let's simplify it even more,

Streaming/porn: Pay a company so you can use their service.

XBL: Pay a company so you can use their service.

But oh wait...you can't do either without paying for an internet connection!

"Awww crap. Streaming, porn, and XBL are all ripping me off because I already have to pay for my internet service, why should I pay them for the ability to use my internet service!!!"

 

See when I pay for something I don't think of the charge as being for streaming. I think of what I'm actually buying when I'm paying for it. IF I payed for porn I wouldn't be thinking about the streaming charge when I'm paying for it. I would be eagerly thinking about the porn I will be watching.

I understand this, but you ARE paying for the cost of the streaming as well, whether you think of it or not.

So that's why I used petrol as an example. When I personally pay for petrol all I can think of is how much of a ripoff it is. Same thing as the live charge. But either way you have to pay for it and it gets the results you want so you can be happy with it.

 

 

BTW: This is from a PS3 owner so I'm kind of talking out my ass about live since I have only ever played it on another person's account and not for long. And I also don't pay for porn. Not while it's also available for free.

I don't fault you for that, it is a personal choice. To some poeople, Live is not worth the money, to others, it is. As for me, I am the biggest cheapskate you will ever meet. I don't pay for ANYTHING if I can get it free, and if I do have to pay for it, I will find the cheapest thing available ( althoug things like frequently used tools, and instruments I won't do anything but the best noi matter what the price) Anyway, I swore up and down that I would never spend money on XBL when there were free services available for linking Xboxes together...and then I experianced live. Would I like it ot be free? You bet! Do I think it should be free, perhaps. But as long as I have to pay the fee to get the services XBL offers, I am ok with it (although were they ever to raise the price I think I would ditch it.)

 



Past Avatar picture!!!

Don't forget your helmet there, Master Chief!