That was why you had to pay for the PS2 online. Was it free? no only the DS has had free online so far. I bet you did not even read what Runmematt posted he explained everything I said but in more detail and I bet you just chose to ignore it because you hate actual facts.
ramunematt wrote:
I hope P. Moore read my analysis.
Will their be an argument?!!!
Hopefully not, I wrote that analysis so he would stop saying Nintendo is the greediest company.
ive read a little bit of it cus u made it way to big, say i made a another console that had ps2 graphics, how much can u buy a ps2 for now a day? about 100 dola, and i put in motion sensing, ok im gona raise the price to 250, its still the cheapest console, its"affordable” but ur buying old stuff
ramunematt wrote:
I hope P. Moore read my analysis.
Will their be an argument?!!!
Hopefully not, I wrote that analysis so he would stop saying Nintendo is the greediest company.
ive read a little bit of it cus u made it way to big, say i made a another console that had ps2 graphics, how much can u buy a ps2 for now a day? about 100 dola, and i put in motion sensing, ok im gona raise the price to 250, its still the cheapest console, its"affordable” but ur buying old stuff
Of course it’s big, it’s an analysis!!! You won’t understand until you read the whole thing.
ramunematt wrote:
I hope P. Moore read my analysis.
Will their be an argument?!!!
Hopefully not, I wrote that analysis so he would stop saying Nintendo is the greediest company.
ive read a little bit of it cus u made it way to big, say i made a another console that had ps2 graphics, how much can u buy a ps2 for now a day? about 100 dola, and i put in motion sensing, ok im gona raise the price to 250, its still the cheapest console, its"affordable” but ur buying old stuff
Last time I checked, when the PS2 first came out it was expensive as well, you think that the wii should just be $100 right off the bat? Then it would make nintendo loose money. P.Moore you seem to forget when companies sell their prodcuts they either make money or lose it which each unit sold. In Nintendo’s case since they sell the console for a fair price it gains them money and the parts used to make each console are plentiful and affordable as well so there is no slowdown on production. In sony’s case however it costs much more to make 1 PS3 and Sony sells it at a high price but lose more when they sell them. The parts cost more and they are not as plentiful so with somthing that is more expesnive to make they end up losing more money with each one bluit and sold.
ramunematt wrote:
I hope P. Moore read my analysis.
Will their be an argument?!!!
Hopefully not, I wrote that analysis so he would stop saying Nintendo is the greediest company.
ive read a little bit of it cus u made it way to big, say i made a another console that had ps2 graphics, how much can u buy a ps2 for now a day? about 100 dola, and i put in motion sensing, ok im gona raise the price to 250, its still the cheapest console, its"affordable” but ur buying old stuff
Last time I checked, when the PS2 first came out it was expensive as well, you think that the wii should just be $100 right off the bat? Then it would make nintendo loose money. P.Moore you seem to forget when companies sell their prodcuts they either make money or lose it which each unit sold. In Nintendo’s case since they sell the console for a fair price it gains them money and the parts used to make each console are plentiful and affordable as well so there is no slowdown on production. In sony’s case however it costs much more to make 1 PS3 and Sony sells it at a high price but lose more when they sell them. The parts cost more and they are not as plentiful so with somthing that is more expesnive to make they end up losing more money with each one bluit and sold.
ok i see what u mean but and agree, but im gona ague anyways cus im hungry, if wii was sold for 100 dola they would only be losing about 70 bucks, th3 360 looses about 100 and the ps3 looses about 200 just like the ps2 did, considering when u buy a wii ur getting this here
a tuned up gamecube, it players games, with nice online features like chanels, and a motion sensing controller, theres nothing else to it except the photo chanel.
the ps3 gives u games, it gives u the next standard in graphics which is amazing, photo viewing features, free online that lets u download free demos, ps1 games, and hd movie trailers(free), also it has 60 gb of space compared to the 512 mb of space, so the ps3 has almost 120 times more space than the wii, the ps3 alos has a motion sensing controller, and its new eye toy 3d will be incredible
ramunematt wrote:
I hope P. Moore read my analysis.
Will their be an argument?!!!
Hopefully not, I wrote that analysis so he would stop saying Nintendo is the greediest company.
ive read a little bit of it cus u made it way to big, say i made a another console that had ps2 graphics, how much can u buy a ps2 for now a day? about 100 dola, and i put in motion sensing, ok im gona raise the price to 250, its still the cheapest console, its"affordable” but ur buying old stuff
Last time I checked, when the PS2 first came out it was expensive as well, you think that the wii should just be $100 right off the bat? Then it would make nintendo loose money. P.Moore you seem to forget when companies sell their prodcuts they either make money or lose it which each unit sold. In Nintendo’s case since they sell the console for a fair price it gains them money and the parts used to make each console are plentiful and affordable as well so there is no slowdown on production. In sony’s case however it costs much more to make 1 PS3 and Sony sells it at a high price but lose more when they sell them. The parts cost more and they are not as plentiful so with somthing that is more expesnive to make they end up losing more money with each one bluit and sold.
ok i see what u mean but and agree, but im gona ague anyways cus im hungry, if wii was sold for 100 dola they would only be losing about 70 bucks, th3 360 looses about 100 and the ps3 looses about 200 just like the ps2 did, considering when u buy a wii ur getting this here
a tuned up gamecube, it players games, with nice online features like chanels, and a motion sensing controller, theres nothing else to it except the photo chanel.
the ps3 gives u games, it gives u the next standard in graphics which is amazing, photo viewing features, free online that lets u download free demos, ps1 games, and hd movie trailers(free), also it has 60 gb of space compared to the 512 mb of space, so the ps3 has almost 120 times more space than the wii, the ps3 alos has a motion sensing controller, and its new eye toy 3d will be incredible
Oh the Eye Toy 3D ohhhh shit, I cant wait to pop bubbles with my bare hand that will be a blast!!!!!!!!!!
Hahaha
No Soft shadows $599
No A.I. Facial emotions $599
No moonlight reflection off water $599
Realising you could play the better version for $200 less....Priceless.
The fact of the matter is....Microsoft has superior developement tools over Sony. Many developers have clearly stated that the 360 is much easier and better for game developement. MS and ATI implimeneted some brilliant decisions in the hardware design that is just “NOW” being implimented in PC video cards. Micorosoft thought ahead in regards to the GPU and the 3 PPU stucture. Sure sony was attempting to be innovative whith the Cell. A one PPU processor with SPE’s running off of it. And sure it pushes an amazing amount of “numbers”....But we are talking about games. And we all know why Sony added the blu ray player to the ps3. So with both decisions in Blu ray and the Cell....it was not a good decision for developers or games. Sure you can argue about if and when developers learn how to take advantage of Cell’s power....But that’s a big “IF” and “When”. And in the meanwhile it costs 1/3rd more to develope for a system that isn’t matching what the 360 is doing. Gamers are seeing it. Developers are seeing it. And many gamers have said “forget 600 for a system that isn’t living up to the hype”...and many developers are saying...“why spend more money to make and inferior game and with a much smaller base of fans”....its going to be tuff for Sony this time around. Thats a fact. Its not the developers. Put the blame where the developers put the blame. With Sony’s choices in hardware this time around. All so they can attempt to be innovative and different. Gamers loose in the end with an over priced inferior system.
Xtrm Liability wrote:
The fact of the matter is....Microsoft has superior developement tools over Sony. Many developers have clearly stated that the 360 is much easier and better for game developement. MS and ATI implimeneted some brilliant decisions in the hardware design that is just “NOW” being implimented in PC video cards. Micorosoft thought ahead in regards to the GPU and the 3 PPU stucture. Sure sony was attempting to be innovative whith the Cell. A one PPU processor with SPE’s running off of it. And sure it pushes an amazing amount of “numbers”....But we are talking about games. And we all know why Sony added the blu ray player to the ps3. So with both decisions in Blu ray and the Cell....it was not a good decision for developers or games. Sure you can argue about if and when developers learn how to take advantage of Cell’s power....But that’s a big “IF” and “When”. And in the meanwhile it costs 1/3rd more to develope for a system that isn’t matching what the 360 is doing. Gamers are seeing it. Developers are seeing it. And many gamers have said “forget 600 for a system that isn’t living up to the hype”...and many developers are saying...“why spend more money to make and inferior game and with a much smaller base of fans”....its going to be tuff for Sony this time around. Thats a fact. Its not the developers. Put the blame where the developers put the blame. With Sony’s choices in hardware this time around. All so they can attempt to be innovative and different. Gamers loose in the end with an over priced inferior system.
Exactly. I’ve given up arguing with you over the graphical potential since, in the end, that’s all it is. Potential, and whatever potential the PS3 has, its not being seen. The only ones I think that may bring out that potential are Factor 5 and Criterion, both did so with the GCN and PS2 respectively.
Still, the Cell is innovative. Sony just thought it would be practical in the PS3. Not really. And kudos to the 360 getting the Unified Architectures. That’s why they had to tone down Oblivion’s content on the PS3, because it has a max of 256MB of system memory, unlike the 360 which can distribute its max 512MB of memory to the system or GPU. Heh, takes a good example to delve something into me.
Xtrm Liability wrote:
Here’s what the PS3 can do...
Hahaha
No Soft shadows $599
No A.I. Facial emotions $599
No moonlight reflection off water $599
Realising you could play the better version for $200 less....Priceless.
CPO Fraser wrote:
learn to make links its really fucking easy.
So... slight graphical improvement.... worth 300 dollars more then 360?
No...Rip off...
where did u get the idea of 300 more? theres a cheaper end 500 $ ps3 that also includes the advantages of blu ray and hdmi
I live in Canada. price differences.
and in Canada practically no electronic stores sell the 20gb one anymore.
And in future shop they raised the price about 80 bucks because they want more money from each sale.... BECAUSE, it is barley selling.
om i live in canada and some of this is already bull
20gb are gone ill admit that
80 bucks wtf its canadian money
the U.S money is worth more
thats why
barley selling is bullshit
they are sitting on shelfs but it doesent mean they arent selling heck i went to futureshop and i saw like 5 ppl in line buying ps3
and 360 isent selling anybetter then the ps3 heck its doing way worse so im still wondering why you xbox fans keep saying that ps3 isent selling but yet its still selling more then the 360
--- i wanna leave this world the way i came in it.
»
Games
» things that ps3 can do
