The Golden 2 Points: The Blueprint to Own ANY PS3 Fanboy

One thing I don't understand about the console wars is this; several people here have mentioned that if PS3 does stay on the market longer then the Wii and 360, those sales don't count because there's no more competition in that generation of consoles. But if that's the case, then the first year of 360 sales shouldn't count either since it was the only seventh generation console on the market. There was no "war" going on until Wii and PS3 hit the market in 2006.

IMO, the current console war started the day xbox 360 was released and is officially over the day they're all discontinued.

Invincible wrote:

One thing I don't understand about the console wars is this; several people here have mentioned that if PS3 does stay on the market longer then the Wii and 360, those sales don't count because there's no more competition in that generation of consoles. But if that's the case, then the first year of 360 sales shouldn't count either since it was the only seventh generation console on the market. There was no "war" going on until Wii and PS3 hit the market in 2006.

IMO, the current console war started the day xbox 360 was released and is officially over the day they're all discontinued.

Think of it like a race. If you start first it counts because the race is on. Once you cross the finish line the race is over and you win. It doesn't matter how many laps your opponent makes after the race has already been won by you.

It's the same with sales. THe Xbox 360 started this generation and the console war. The PS3 came in late, that's their fault. The console war is over when the next generation starts. Who ever is in last place when the next gen starts is the loser and any sales after that are pointless because the world has moved on.

On a side note it's hilarious how PS3 fanboys think that if the PS3 is on the market long enough it will sell as much as the PS2. That won't happen. For one thing the Xbox 360 is just as likely to last ten years on the market as the PS3. The PS3 does not have some kind of magic staying power that will give it bigger sales every year leading up to a win at year 10. The Xbox 360 has stolen Sony's thunder. The PS3 is not as popular as the PS2 and the Xbox 360 is still going strong 5 years after it's released and is looking to have it's strongest year going into it's sixth holiday season.

343_Guilty_Spark wrote:

Invincible wrote:

One thing I don't understand about the console wars is this; several people here have mentioned that if PS3 does stay on the market longer then the Wii and 360, those sales don't count because there's no more competition in that generation of consoles. But if that's the case, then the first year of 360 sales shouldn't count either since it was the only seventh generation console on the market. There was no "war" going on until Wii and PS3 hit the market in 2006.

IMO, the current console war started the day xbox 360 was released and is officially over the day they're all discontinued.

Think of it like a race. If you start first it counts because the race is on. Once you cross the finish line the race is over and you win. It doesn't matter how many laps your opponent makes after the race has already been won by you.

It's the same with sales. THe Xbox 360 started this generation and the console war. The PS3 came in late, that's their fault. The console war is over when the next generation starts. Who ever is in last place when the next gen starts is the loser and any sales after that are pointless because the world has moved on.

On a side note it's hilarious how PS3 fanboys think that if the PS3 is on the market long enough it will sell as much as the PS2. That won't happen. For one thing the Xbox 360 is just as likely to last ten years on the market as the PS3. The PS3 does not have some kind of magic staying power that will give it bigger sales every year leading up to a win at year 10. The Xbox 360 has stolen Sony's thunder. The PS3 is not as popular as the PS2 and the Xbox 360 is still going strong 5 years after it's released and is looking to have it's strongest year going into it's sixth holiday season.

So it doesn't count if PS3 and 360 are still duking it out in 2016? It all ends the day Nintendo releases their new console? It just doesn't sound right.

Invincible wrote:

343_Guilty_Spark wrote:

Invincible wrote:

One thing I don't understand about the console wars is this; several people here have mentioned that if PS3 does stay on the market longer then the Wii and 360, those sales don't count because there's no more competition in that generation of consoles. But if that's the case, then the first year of 360 sales shouldn't count either since it was the only seventh generation console on the market. There was no "war" going on until Wii and PS3 hit the market in 2006.

IMO, the current console war started the day xbox 360 was released and is officially over the day they're all discontinued.

Think of it like a race. If you start first it counts because the race is on. Once you cross the finish line the race is over and you win. It doesn't matter how many laps your opponent makes after the race has already been won by you.

It's the same with sales. THe Xbox 360 started this generation and the console war. The PS3 came in late, that's their fault. The console war is over when the next generation starts. Who ever is in last place when the next gen starts is the loser and any sales after that are pointless because the world has moved on.

On a side note it's hilarious how PS3 fanboys think that if the PS3 is on the market long enough it will sell as much as the PS2. That won't happen. For one thing the Xbox 360 is just as likely to last ten years on the market as the PS3. The PS3 does not have some kind of magic staying power that will give it bigger sales every year leading up to a win at year 10. The Xbox 360 has stolen Sony's thunder. The PS3 is not as popular as the PS2 and the Xbox 360 is still going strong 5 years after it's released and is looking to have it's strongest year going into it's sixth holiday season.

So it doesn't count if PS3 and 360 are still duking it out in 2016? It all ends the day Nintendo releases their new console? It just doesn't sound right.

Well since the Wii is off in WiiSpace by itself and isn't a real HD console I'd say that the generation ends when Sony or Microsoft releases a truly next gen machine. The Wii is like a slightly upgraded Gamecube with silly motion controlls that Soccer Moms think will help them lose some weight. The Xbox 360 and the PS3 are HD consoles and that's wha the war is really about. Selling games to gamers is what the console war has always been about not selling balance boards to board house wives that don't know the difference between Mario, Sonic, and Master Chief.

So, in short, this generation ends not when Nintendo releases a Wii HD, but when MS or Sony releases a Xbox 4000 or a PS4.

BTW, it's not going to be Xbox 720. The only reason MS went with the name "360" was to make sure the PS3 didn't sound like had a higher number and therefore more powerful. MS will either go with a subtitle like Nintendo does or go with a number that sounds just as "advanced" as the 4 on Sony's next failure of a console.

The PS3 will probably never beat the 360 in sales this generation. I mean seriously it's been having sale spikes lately because of the introduction of the PS3 Slim but that doesn't mean it's couple-thousand-per-month lead is going to close to 5 million console gap. I think it's been 5 or 6 million for over 2 years.

If Microsoft releases a new revision of the 360, a price drop, Project Natal, and killer APs like Halo the tables will turn and the 360 will start slightly beating it monthly, increasing the gap further.

my rules are
1 Respect them but own them in everyway (that way they will feel more immature then you and owned)
2.FACTS (always)
3 good attiude if you have a good attitude you can own every guy in the world

*sigh*

silly peasants. When will you learn that owning only one console is a weakness?

Ill be over here with my PC, 360, PS3, and wii

broseidon wrote:

*sigh*

silly peasants. When will you learn that owning only one console is a weakness?

Ill be over here with my PC, 360, PS3, and wii

Hm I just need to add the wii to my collection. Do you think it's worth buying a wii just for monster hunter lol.

I wanted to point out a few flaws that I see where these points would not work on the two extremes of people you will encounter.:

1st: If you are arguing with a fanboy, no matter how much logic you use, they will respond with herp derp. Logic and facts just don't work if someone can't comprehend them and you will have only accomplished wasting your time on a close minded idiot. The best you can do is bait an argument out of them and enjoy as they get mad. If you state facts they don't have the intelligence to try to counter, you will just get herp derp and that's it. I would try skewing the truth in your favor. Subtle things that could easily go either way. They might take the bait and actually try to argue back at which point, you can sink to their level and just keep egging them on with biased facts. Not a gentleman's fight, but you accomplish your goal of making them angry so you win.

2nd is for someone who is more mature and just plays games for fun. These points won't work on them since they are simply satisfied with what they have, but can still appreciate what is on 360. They won't care about sales or ratings if they are having fun playing the games that are available to them. How do you reply if you show someone how good Halo Reach is going to be and they reply that it does look good and they would like to play it if they get the chance? If you keep arguing, that just makes you look bad when they agree that 360 games look good but they just can't afford two systems. You can say that they should switch systems, but then it is just opinion vs opinion and these people will not care about the industry's opinion if they are having fun. For these people, love and peace is a better option then trying to argue at all. Just enjoy chatting about your hobby with someone who also enjoys the same thing.

GeneralMLD wrote:

This is a draft of the Golden 3 Points. Through your suggestions we will make changes. I will then make vids directed at PS3 fanboys and prove to you that with the 3 points you are untouchable in an argument. But for now, let's review and fine tune the formula.

The Golden 3 Points: The Blueprint to Own Any PS3 Fanboy

Point #1: Sales/Marketshare

Relevant Web Sites: www.vgchartz.com

Note: This will always be our point as long as the 360 maintains a lead over PS3 in total, global sales.

When to Use: Whenever a PS3 fanboy talks down to you, Microsoft, and/or the 360.

What to Say: Remind them that it is you who is their superior. Your corporation is beating theirs, they screwed up by going from #1 to #3. You can never say this too much.

If a PS3 fanboy is saying cons about the 360, let them continue and finish. The more the better. When they are finished, reply with "I don't know whats more embarrassing, the fact that 360 has those cons, or the fact that PS3 is LOOSING to those cons. PS3 loosing to the RROD, PS3 is loosing to LIVE fees, etc". They essentially dig their own grave, admitting that PS3 is getting its ass kicked by something they think is so flawed. RROD that hasnt been completely fixed and then the Error 74 comes up to say hi, Live is not beating PSN, there is far more active PSN thanks to being free

The PS3 fanboy might say something like "All you do is talk about sales"in fact, you do. It is actually them trying to trick you into changing the subject as they can't counter you here. You could continue to hammer it in that they are last placebcause it was released/rushed 1 year ahead than the PS3 and Wii (trust me it will get on their nerves as it sinks in).......or you can resort to Point #2.

If a PS3 fanboy says that since PS3 released that its been consistently outselling the 360, say that the 360 actually outsold PS3 in 2008. Also jokingly say 2005 and 2006 as years the 360 outsold the PS3. Because as much as they don't like it, we count sales since the generation began. You come to the gen late, you pay the consequences. 1 year ahead, rush out a product and you get RROD, although sony didnt do a good marketing(this is living commercials), you got no argument from me there.

Point #2: Games Library

Relevant Web Sites:

http://www.metacritic.com/games/ps3/scores/ PS3 Best Reviewed Games of All Time
http://www.metacritic.com/games/xbox360/scores/ 360 Best Reviewed Games of All Time
please note how there are far more acclaimed exclusives (85+) for PS3

Note: This will always be our point as long as the 360 maintains a lead over PS3 in total A (70-79%), AA (80-89%), and AAA (90+) games.

When to Use: Whenever a PS3 fanboy says their games are superior then Xbox 360s. our exclusives are iin fact, superior

What to Say:

Give them the two links right away. Show them that you have evidence that they are wrong. If they are too irrational to be dealt with, revert back to Point #1 as that is the only thing they might comprehend, as learning the PS3 has an inferior library is too much for their mind to process.last christmass i was having a blast with uncharted 2, what you guys got? a 60$ halo 3, 5 hour expansion?

There are three PS3 fanboy explanations upon seeing the two links.

1. Many fo the 360s games are old/have been released before the PS3. i still play splinter cell chaos theory, you follow?

You respond: So by your logic Metal Gear Solid 4 will be considered "old" in a couple years and therefore isn't worth anybodies time? Insert many older PS3 exclusives like Resistance 1/2, Killzone 2, etc. and say how according to them, they will all be "trash" in a few years since they will be too "old". Finish off by telling them "As long as it is a current gen game, it is relevant". Also throw in that their quality doesn't diminish and that due to their age they are cheap to buy, therefore they actually still sell reasonably well given their age. i can agree with you here, good games are always good games

2. Many of those games on 360 are multiplat (also on PC or otherwise).

Here is where you stay firm. Ask them "Can PS3 play those games?"no, but are they a reason to buy a 360? no, they are a reason to buy a PC. They will reply with that they can play the game on the other platforms. Keep asking them the question until they answer. Hammer it home that the 360 can play the games and PS3 CAN'T. You can also say "Why are you hiding behind other platforms, I thought PS3 was so awesome by itself"it is, we have exclusives that are superior in quality and variety, or "Can't you guys be true men and stand behind your console without resorting to others to help it, we stand behind our console", and finally "LOL your using a platform that is 90% run on Microsoft software to help Sony fight Microsoft in the console space?" no, that would be retarded Also revert to point #1 to remind them they are last place and therefore don't have the right to say what counts and what doesn't count.

"If it's on 360 and not on PS3, it counts, exclusive or otherwise". LOL!!!

3. "I don't care what they say. In my opinion the PS3 has a better library". it does, see above

You better hope they say this because this is the most fun to respond to. Time to throw them a little math. Give them two equations.

Opinion = Opinion

Basically you think 360 has a better library. They think PS3 has a better library. They cancel each other out. Both opinions are just that, opinions.

Opinion + Industry Opinion > Opinion Opinion + Industry Opinion = Opinion fixed that for ya

You have the backing of the gaming industry. Metacritic takes the average of DOZENS of reviewers, people who make it their JOB to review games. They are a part of the industry we value so much and their opinions are simply viewed as more professional then the average gamer (like it or not). To say that your opinion has the backing of the GAMING INDUSTRY and theirs doesn't, you are effectively saying their opinion is wrong, that they are delusional, that they have bad taste.not bad taste, different taste Because your tastes are supported by the very industry itself.oh yeah, the almighty "industry", they are not just mere humans, right?

SPECIAL NOTE CONCERNING THE WORD "EXCLUSIVE": You do not view who has a better library in terms of just exclusives.actually, thats how you do it If a PS3 fanboy throws that word around, simply say you are above that, that we use a higher method of comparing libraries. Also throw in point #1 to say that they are in no place to say that just exclusives count. Exclusives are only a piece of the pie, we use the whole picture when doing a comparison. Because while exclusives are nice, many multiplats NOT on the competition also play a key role in defining a consolemultiplats are not a key role, the key role here is advertisment, how can they define a console if they are the same thing on both consoles . That is why 360 gamers value not just exclusives, but 360 multiplats NOT on PS3lol wut. Both are games that the PS3 can't play. The fact that some are available elsewhere are irrelevant to us, just so long as PS3 doesn't get it.HA HA HA OH WOW, you realize you get the inferior versions of the PC games? thats lik saying the iPhone is better because it has Plants Vs Zombies and the 360 doesnt


Point #3: Online

Relevant Web Sites: None for now.

Note: This will always be our point as long as Xbox LIVE has more features then PSNcross game chat, thats about it, PSN also has Facebook, last fm, and twitter, and guess what, a fully functional (yet not perfected) Web Browser. This is a new point as all previous console generations didn't put too much importance on online, until this generation. Not as important as Point #1 or #2, but still relevant.

When to Use: Whenever a PS3 fanboy says PSN is equal/superior to LIVE. it is since the only thing Live has above PSN is cross game chat, yet it offers the same features FOR FREE

What to Say: At the very least, say that LIVE has cross-game chatting and the LIVE party system (allowing 8 friends to be together in any game, or in constant communication even if they are doing 8 different things). see above

IMPORTANT: PS3 fanboys seem to think online is only about multiplayer gamingwell on a gaming console it is. It is your job to say that true online (LIVE) is about anything and everything that requires the internet, not just mere multiplayer gaming.yeah, like facebook, twitter, last fm, PLAYSTATION HOME

- Trueskill matchmaking: Players matched are in similar leader board standings, ensuring more even matches. PSN on the other hand merely matches whoever is available, no matter their skill level.that actually depends on the game, MW2 and all multiplatforms for that matter use the same matchamking on both consoles

- Standard headset: Since launch, 360's are bundled with headsets. PS3's have never been bundled with headsets. Tell them in LIVE people actually team up and communicate where as PSN is full of uncoordinated mutes. In the event a PS3 fanboy says LIVE is full of screaming kids, say that you can mute them easily as well as say that more often then not you have serious gamers that you can team up with. Either way, its better then mutes that do whatever they want without helping the team. you get no argument from me here. but bluetooth headsets are as cheap as 10 bucks anyway, and truly cooperative players always get a mic

-Custom soundtrack for 100% 360 games: Just a nice feature we have. PS3 only has a certain few games that support it. We have it universally. neat

- Video store, Netflix: We got those first. PSN got those second, as they are the second class service. you got it first, but now PS3 has it, hell even WII has it, so you have no real argument there mate

- Where our $50 goes to: Bribes (lol). Ever wonder why we have Mass Effect 2 and Splinter Cell Conviction not coming to PS3, despite the developers being true MULTIPLAT developers? How other 3rd party games like Metro 2033, Supreme Commander 2, Tropico 3, Last Remnant, all don't have a PS3 version? Wonder why we get all the DLC first (MW2 for example)? Ever wonder why we get so many more XBLA games that never make it to PSN? Wonder why we get exclusive demos that PSN doesn't get? Wonder why we get so many timed exclusives that don't make it to PS3 until months or a year later (Lost Planet, Bioshock, Rock Band 2, GRAW 2, Splinter Cell Double Agent, Orange Box, GTA 4 Lost and Damned, GTA 4 Ballad of Gay Tony, etc. last remnant is on PS3, lost planet was even before the PS3 console launch, GRAW 2 had a simultaneous release and whats the point of paying for timed exclusivity? if everyone else gets the stuff in the end

- Also note that PS3 games are not all dedicated servers, as they seem to think. Also you can tell them that dedicated servers get closed eventually, where as P2P servers last as long as their are gamers to play on them. who said PS3 has dedicated servers on all games, but is a sure fact that there is hell of a lot more games that use dedicated servers than games on the 360

- Also bring up Qore, how its $25 per year on PSN, and how we have that service for free (Inside Xbox).i dont know what exactly qore offers so i shut up here

- Don't forget that if they ever bring up HOME, say that it is a spectacular waste of time. since xbox brags so much about having an online service not entirely focused on gaming but also social services is weird how they call HOME a waste of time

Other Important Talking Points

Hardware Tech Isn't a Priority - Bring up the Xbox, PS2, Gamecube generation as well as this one for evidence. These two generations are the most current and therefore the most compelling evidence. The XBox had the tech and power. Built in hard drive, 4 controller ports, DLC, patches, superior online, superior graphics, reliable......yet it lost to the PS2. Sony gamers proved that they value games over console tech. Same with this generation as the Wii is winning despite it being the weakest from a features/tech standpoint. The PS3, being the most powerful console, also has the least market share, showing just how gamers prefer games over whats under the hood. with PS3, you get both

Reliability Isn't That Big a Issue HOW THE FUCK CAN YOU SAY THIS WITH A STRAIGHT FACE?- Bring up the Xbox, PS2, Gamecube generation as well as this one for evidence.These two generations are the most current and therefore the most compelling evidence. The PS2 was the least reliable of that generation, yet the gamers didn't care. Instead they focused on what the PS2 offered: games. The PS2 won that generation. This generation, the 360 is the least reliable, yet it is still selling well since the PS3 launched. It is still retaining 2nd place after all that bad publicity. Why? Because it has more A, AA, AAA games then PS3 (See Point #2). Gamers go for the games first, even Sony fanboys last gen. Remind them of that. Finally remind them that the reliability rate vastly improved since launch. PS2 had its faults but nowhere near a 54% total failure rate http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/101/1014486p1.html

List of PS3 (and Sony) Flaws - Inferior multiplats (Bayonetta being the most recent example)bad example, multiplats are now the same thing on both, bayonetta is now a rare case, not the common factor due to their all mighty cell rocessor being so difficult to program fori have yet to see a game on the 360 that has as good graphics as killzone 2, uncharted, resistance, or god of war 3 lack of gamers buying plus expensive developing costs alienate developers (like VALVEvalve has their reasons, they only develop for the 360 for having an architecture similar to the PC, valve is mainly PC developers) to not develop for the PS3 at all, PSN started out mediocre and is still today not on par with LIVE, no standard headset, mandatory installs of up to 5 gigs (we have optional and the 360 versions require mere megabytes to save optional?, megabytes? trolololololololol), no backwards compatibility with PS2, Linux support lost, and offcourse it doesn't help that Sony doesn't have the money or power to secure any 360/PC games for their console, or DLC. thats up to developers PSN started out mediocre, but now its only 1 feature away from LIVE (see above), and guess what, it is still free

Fun Fact: The PS3 has also cost Sony 5 billion dollars at least by now where as Microsoft has been turning a profit for the 360 for years now. http://www.joystiq.com/2009/10/30/ps3-has-lost-sony-4-7-billion-may-be-profitable-next-year/

oh yeah, because microsoft is going to give that money to you, right?

Colonel_Campbell wrote:

GeneralMLD wrote:

This is a draft of the Golden 3 Points. Through your suggestions we will make changes. I will then make vids directed at PS3 fanboys and prove to you that with the 3 points you are untouchable in an argument. But for now, let's review and fine tune the formula.

The Golden 3 Points: The Blueprint to Own Any PS3 Fanboy

Point #1: Sales/Marketshare

Relevant Web Sites: www.vgchartz.com

Note: This will always be our point as long as the 360 maintains a lead over PS3 in total, global sales.

When to Use: Whenever a PS3 fanboy talks down to you, Microsoft, and/or the 360.

What to Say: Remind them that it is you who is their superior. Your corporation is beating theirs, they screwed up by going from #1 to #3. You can never say this too much.

If a PS3 fanboy is saying cons about the 360, let them continue and finish. The more the better. When they are finished, reply with "I don't know whats more embarrassing, the fact that 360 has those cons, or the fact that PS3 is LOOSING to those cons. PS3 loosing to the RROD, PS3 is loosing to LIVE fees, etc". They essentially dig their own grave, admitting that PS3 is getting its ass kicked by something they think is so flawed. RROD that hasnt been completely fixed and then the Error 74 comes up to say hi, Live is not beating PSN, there is far more active PSN thanks to being free

The PS3 fanboy might say something like "All you do is talk about sales"in fact, you do. It is actually them trying to trick you into changing the subject as they can't counter you here. You could continue to hammer it in that they are last placebcause it was released/rushed 1 year ahead than the PS3 and Wii (trust me it will get on their nerves as it sinks in).......or you can resort to Point #2.

If a PS3 fanboy says that since PS3 released that its been consistently outselling the 360, say that the 360 actually outsold PS3 in 2008. Also jokingly say 2005 and 2006 as years the 360 outsold the PS3. Because as much as they don't like it, we count sales since the generation began. You come to the gen late, you pay the consequences. 1 year ahead, rush out a product and you get RROD, although sony didnt do a good marketing(this is living commercials), you got no argument from me there.

Point #2: Games Library

Relevant Web Sites:

http://www.metacritic.com/games/ps3/scores/ PS3 Best Reviewed Games of All Time
http://www.metacritic.com/games/xbox360/scores/ 360 Best Reviewed Games of All Time
please note how there are far more acclaimed exclusives (85+) for PS3

Note: This will always be our point as long as the 360 maintains a lead over PS3 in total A (70-79%), AA (80-89%), and AAA (90+) games.

When to Use: Whenever a PS3 fanboy says their games are superior then Xbox 360s. our exclusives are iin fact, superior

What to Say:

Give them the two links right away. Show them that you have evidence that they are wrong. If they are too irrational to be dealt with, revert back to Point #1 as that is the only thing they might comprehend, as learning the PS3 has an inferior library is too much for their mind to process.last christmass i was having a blast with uncharted 2, what you guys got? a 60$ halo 3, 5 hour expansion?

There are three PS3 fanboy explanations upon seeing the two links.

1. Many fo the 360s games are old/have been released before the PS3. i still play splinter cell chaos theory, you follow?

You respond: So by your logic Metal Gear Solid 4 will be considered "old" in a couple years and therefore isn't worth anybodies time? Insert many older PS3 exclusives like Resistance 1/2, Killzone 2, etc. and say how according to them, they will all be "trash" in a few years since they will be too "old". Finish off by telling them "As long as it is a current gen game, it is relevant". Also throw in that their quality doesn't diminish and that due to their age they are cheap to buy, therefore they actually still sell reasonably well given their age. i can agree with you here, good games are always good games

2. Many of those games on 360 are multiplat (also on PC or otherwise).

Here is where you stay firm. Ask them "Can PS3 play those games?"no, but are they a reason to buy a 360? no, they are a reason to buy a PC. They will reply with that they can play the game on the other platforms. Keep asking them the question until they answer. Hammer it home that the 360 can play the games and PS3 CAN'T. You can also say "Why are you hiding behind other platforms, I thought PS3 was so awesome by itself"it is, we have exclusives that are superior in quality and variety, or "Can't you guys be true men and stand behind your console without resorting to others to help it, we stand behind our console", and finally "LOL your using a platform that is 90% run on Microsoft software to help Sony fight Microsoft in the console space?" no, that would be retarded Also revert to point #1 to remind them they are last place and therefore don't have the right to say what counts and what doesn't count.

"If it's on 360 and not on PS3, it counts, exclusive or otherwise". LOL!!!

3. "I don't care what they say. In my opinion the PS3 has a better library". it does, see above

You better hope they say this because this is the most fun to respond to. Time to throw them a little math. Give them two equations.

Opinion = Opinion

Basically you think 360 has a better library. They think PS3 has a better library. They cancel each other out. Both opinions are just that, opinions.

Opinion + Industry Opinion > Opinion Opinion + Industry Opinion = Opinion fixed that for ya

You have the backing of the gaming industry. Metacritic takes the average of DOZENS of reviewers, people who make it their JOB to review games. They are a part of the industry we value so much and their opinions are simply viewed as more professional then the average gamer (like it or not). To say that your opinion has the backing of the GAMING INDUSTRY and theirs doesn't, you are effectively saying their opinion is wrong, that they are delusional, that they have bad taste.not bad taste, different taste Because your tastes are supported by the very industry itself.oh yeah, the almighty "industry", they are not just mere humans, right?

SPECIAL NOTE CONCERNING THE WORD "EXCLUSIVE": You do not view who has a better library in terms of just exclusives.actually, thats how you do it If a PS3 fanboy throws that word around, simply say you are above that, that we use a higher method of comparing libraries. Also throw in point #1 to say that they are in no place to say that just exclusives count. Exclusives are only a piece of the pie, we use the whole picture when doing a comparison. Because while exclusives are nice, many multiplats NOT on the competition also play a key role in defining a consolemultiplats are not a key role, the key role here is advertisment, how can they define a console if they are the same thing on both consoles . That is why 360 gamers value not just exclusives, but 360 multiplats NOT on PS3lol wut. Both are games that the PS3 can't play. The fact that some are available elsewhere are irrelevant to us, just so long as PS3 doesn't get it.HA HA HA OH WOW, you realize you get the inferior versions of the PC games? thats lik saying the iPhone is better because it has Plants Vs Zombies and the 360 doesnt


Point #3: Online

Relevant Web Sites: None for now.

Note: This will always be our point as long as Xbox LIVE has more features then PSNcross game chat, thats about it, PSN also has Facebook, last fm, and twitter, and guess what, a fully functional (yet not perfected) Web Browser. This is a new point as all previous console generations didn't put too much importance on online, until this generation. Not as important as Point #1 or #2, but still relevant.

When to Use: Whenever a PS3 fanboy says PSN is equal/superior to LIVE. it is since the only thing Live has above PSN is cross game chat, yet it offers the same features FOR FREE

What to Say: At the very least, say that LIVE has cross-game chatting and the LIVE party system (allowing 8 friends to be together in any game, or in constant communication even if they are doing 8 different things). see above

IMPORTANT: PS3 fanboys seem to think online is only about multiplayer gamingwell on a gaming console it is. It is your job to say that true online (LIVE) is about anything and everything that requires the internet, not just mere multiplayer gaming.yeah, like facebook, twitter, last fm, PLAYSTATION HOME

- Trueskill matchmaking: Players matched are in similar leader board standings, ensuring more even matches. PSN on the other hand merely matches whoever is available, no matter their skill level.that actually depends on the game, MW2 and all multiplatforms for that matter use the same matchamking on both consoles

- Standard headset: Since launch, 360's are bundled with headsets. PS3's have never been bundled with headsets. Tell them in LIVE people actually team up and communicate where as PSN is full of uncoordinated mutes. In the event a PS3 fanboy says LIVE is full of screaming kids, say that you can mute them easily as well as say that more often then not you have serious gamers that you can team up with. Either way, its better then mutes that do whatever they want without helping the team. you get no argument from me here. but bluetooth headsets are as cheap as 10 bucks anyway, and truly cooperative players always get a mic

-Custom soundtrack for 100% 360 games: Just a nice feature we have. PS3 only has a certain few games that support it. We have it universally. neat

- Video store, Netflix: We got those first. PSN got those second, as they are the second class service. you got it first, but now PS3 has it, hell even WII has it, so you have no real argument there mate

- Where our $50 goes to: Bribes (lol). Ever wonder why we have Mass Effect 2 and Splinter Cell Conviction not coming to PS3, despite the developers being true MULTIPLAT developers? How other 3rd party games like Metro 2033, Supreme Commander 2, Tropico 3, Last Remnant, all don't have a PS3 version? Wonder why we get all the DLC first (MW2 for example)? Ever wonder why we get so many more XBLA games that never make it to PSN? Wonder why we get exclusive demos that PSN doesn't get? Wonder why we get so many timed exclusives that don't make it to PS3 until months or a year later (Lost Planet, Bioshock, Rock Band 2, GRAW 2, Splinter Cell Double Agent, Orange Box, GTA 4 Lost and Damned, GTA 4 Ballad of Gay Tony, etc. last remnant is on PS3, lost planet was even before the PS3 console launch, GRAW 2 had a simultaneous release and whats the point of paying for timed exclusivity? if everyone else gets the stuff in the end

- Also note that PS3 games are not all dedicated servers, as they seem to think. Also you can tell them that dedicated servers get closed eventually, where as P2P servers last as long as their are gamers to play on them. who said PS3 has dedicated servers on all games, but is a sure fact that there is hell of a lot more games that use dedicated servers than games on the 360

- Also bring up Qore, how its $25 per year on PSN, and how we have that service for free (Inside Xbox).i dont know what exactly qore offers so i shut up here

- Don't forget that if they ever bring up HOME, say that it is a spectacular waste of time. since xbox brags so much about having an online service not entirely focused on gaming but also social services is weird how they call HOME a waste of time

Other Important Talking Points

Hardware Tech Isn't a Priority - Bring up the Xbox, PS2, Gamecube generation as well as this one for evidence. These two generations are the most current and therefore the most compelling evidence. The XBox had the tech and power. Built in hard drive, 4 controller ports, DLC, patches, superior online, superior graphics, reliable......yet it lost to the PS2. Sony gamers proved that they value games over console tech. Same with this generation as the Wii is winning despite it being the weakest from a features/tech standpoint. The PS3, being the most powerful console, also has the least market share, showing just how gamers prefer games over whats under the hood. with PS3, you get both

Reliability Isn't That Big a Issue HOW THE FUCK CAN YOU SAY THIS WITH A STRAIGHT FACE?- Bring up the Xbox, PS2, Gamecube generation as well as this one for evidence.These two generations are the most current and therefore the most compelling evidence. The PS2 was the least reliable of that generation, yet the gamers didn't care. Instead they focused on what the PS2 offered: games. The PS2 won that generation. This generation, the 360 is the least reliable, yet it is still selling well since the PS3 launched. It is still retaining 2nd place after all that bad publicity. Why? Because it has more A, AA, AAA games then PS3 (See Point #2). Gamers go for the games first, even Sony fanboys last gen. Remind them of that. Finally remind them that the reliability rate vastly improved since launch. PS2 had its faults but nowhere near a 54% total failure rate http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/101/1014486p1.html

List of PS3 (and Sony) Flaws - Inferior multiplats (Bayonetta being the most recent example) due to their all mighty cell rocessor being so difficult to program for, lack of gamers buying plus expensive developing costs alienate developers (like VALVE) to not develop for the PS3 at all, PSN started out mediocre and is still today not on par with LIVE, no standard headset, mandatory installs of up to 5 gigs (we have optional and the 360 versions require mere megabytes to save optional?, megabytes? trolololololololol), no backwards compatibility with PS2, Linux support lost, and offcourse it doesn't help that Sony doesn't have the money or power to secure any 360/PC games for their console, or DLC. thats up to developers PSN started out mediocre, but now its only 1 feature away from LIVE (see above), and guess what, it is still free

Fun Fact: The PS3 has also cost Sony 5 billion dollars at least by now where as Microsoft has been turning a profit for the 360 for years now. http://www.joystiq.com/2009/10/30/ps3-has-lost-sony-4-7-billion-may-be-profitable-next-year/

oh yeah, because microsoft is going to give that money to you, right?

YES THEY WILL

Lt Xplosi wrote:

Colonel_Campbell wrote:

GeneralMLD wrote:

This is a draft of the Golden 3 Points. Through your suggestions we will make changes. I will then make vids directed at PS3 fanboys and prove to you that with the 3 points you are untouchable in an argument. But for now, let's review and fine tune the formula.

The Golden 3 Points: The Blueprint to Own Any PS3 Fanboy

Point #1: Sales/Marketshare

Relevant Web Sites: www.vgchartz.com

Note: This will always be our point as long as the 360 maintains a lead over PS3 in total, global sales.

When to Use: Whenever a PS3 fanboy talks down to you, Microsoft, and/or the 360.

What to Say: Remind them that it is you who is their superior. Your corporation is beating theirs, they screwed up by going from #1 to #3. You can never say this too much.

If a PS3 fanboy is saying cons about the 360, let them continue and finish. The more the better. When they are finished, reply with "I don't know whats more embarrassing, the fact that 360 has those cons, or the fact that PS3 is LOOSING to those cons. PS3 loosing to the RROD, PS3 is loosing to LIVE fees, etc". They essentially dig their own grave, admitting that PS3 is getting its ass kicked by something they think is so flawed. RROD that hasnt been completely fixed and then the Error 74 comes up to say hi, Live is not beating PSN, there is far more active PSN thanks to being free

The PS3 fanboy might say something like "All you do is talk about sales"in fact, you do. It is actually them trying to trick you into changing the subject as they can't counter you here. You could continue to hammer it in that they are last placebcause it was released/rushed 1 year ahead than the PS3 and Wii (trust me it will get on their nerves as it sinks in).......or you can resort to Point #2.

If a PS3 fanboy says that since PS3 released that its been consistently outselling the 360, say that the 360 actually outsold PS3 in 2008. Also jokingly say 2005 and 2006 as years the 360 outsold the PS3. Because as much as they don't like it, we count sales since the generation began. You come to the gen late, you pay the consequences. 1 year ahead, rush out a product and you get RROD, although sony didnt do a good marketing(this is living commercials), you got no argument from me there.

Point #2: Games Library

Relevant Web Sites:

http://www.metacritic.com/games/ps3/scores/ PS3 Best Reviewed Games of All Time
http://www.metacritic.com/games/xbox360/scores/ 360 Best Reviewed Games of All Time
please note how there are far more acclaimed exclusives (85+) for PS3

Note: This will always be our point as long as the 360 maintains a lead over PS3 in total A (70-79%), AA (80-89%), and AAA (90+) games.

When to Use: Whenever a PS3 fanboy says their games are superior then Xbox 360s. our exclusives are iin fact, superior

What to Say:

Give them the two links right away. Show them that you have evidence that they are wrong. If they are too irrational to be dealt with, revert back to Point #1 as that is the only thing they might comprehend, as learning the PS3 has an inferior library is too much for their mind to process.last christmass i was having a blast with uncharted 2, what you guys got? a 60$ halo 3, 5 hour expansion?

There are three PS3 fanboy explanations upon seeing the two links.

1. Many fo the 360s games are old/have been released before the PS3. i still play splinter cell chaos theory, you follow?

You respond: So by your logic Metal Gear Solid 4 will be considered "old" in a couple years and therefore isn't worth anybodies time? Insert many older PS3 exclusives like Resistance 1/2, Killzone 2, etc. and say how according to them, they will all be "trash" in a few years since they will be too "old". Finish off by telling them "As long as it is a current gen game, it is relevant". Also throw in that their quality doesn't diminish and that due to their age they are cheap to buy, therefore they actually still sell reasonably well given their age. i can agree with you here, good games are always good games

2. Many of those games on 360 are multiplat (also on PC or otherwise).

Here is where you stay firm. Ask them "Can PS3 play those games?"no, but are they a reason to buy a 360? no, they are a reason to buy a PC. They will reply with that they can play the game on the other platforms. Keep asking them the question until they answer. Hammer it home that the 360 can play the games and PS3 CAN'T. You can also say "Why are you hiding behind other platforms, I thought PS3 was so awesome by itself"it is, we have exclusives that are superior in quality and variety, or "Can't you guys be true men and stand behind your console without resorting to others to help it, we stand behind our console", and finally "LOL your using a platform that is 90% run on Microsoft software to help Sony fight Microsoft in the console space?" no, that would be retarded Also revert to point #1 to remind them they are last place and therefore don't have the right to say what counts and what doesn't count.

"If it's on 360 and not on PS3, it counts, exclusive or otherwise". LOL!!!

3. "I don't care what they say. In my opinion the PS3 has a better library". it does, see above

You better hope they say this because this is the most fun to respond to. Time to throw them a little math. Give them two equations.

Opinion = Opinion

Basically you think 360 has a better library. They think PS3 has a better library. They cancel each other out. Both opinions are just that, opinions.

Opinion + Industry Opinion > Opinion Opinion + Industry Opinion = Opinion fixed that for ya

You have the backing of the gaming industry. Metacritic takes the average of DOZENS of reviewers, people who make it their JOB to review games. They are a part of the industry we value so much and their opinions are simply viewed as more professional then the average gamer (like it or not). To say that your opinion has the backing of the GAMING INDUSTRY and theirs doesn't, you are effectively saying their opinion is wrong, that they are delusional, that they have bad taste.not bad taste, different taste Because your tastes are supported by the very industry itself.oh yeah, the almighty "industry", they are not just mere humans, right?

SPECIAL NOTE CONCERNING THE WORD "EXCLUSIVE": You do not view who has a better library in terms of just exclusives.actually, thats how you do it If a PS3 fanboy throws that word around, simply say you are above that, that we use a higher method of comparing libraries. Also throw in point #1 to say that they are in no place to say that just exclusives count. Exclusives are only a piece of the pie, we use the whole picture when doing a comparison. Because while exclusives are nice, many multiplats NOT on the competition also play a key role in defining a consolemultiplats are not a key role, the key role here is advertisment, how can they define a console if they are the same thing on both consoles . That is why 360 gamers value not just exclusives, but 360 multiplats NOT on PS3lol wut. Both are games that the PS3 can't play. The fact that some are available elsewhere are irrelevant to us, just so long as PS3 doesn't get it.HA HA HA OH WOW, you realize you get the inferior versions of the PC games? thats lik saying the iPhone is better because it has Plants Vs Zombies and the 360 doesnt


Point #3: Online

Relevant Web Sites: None for now.

Note: This will always be our point as long as Xbox LIVE has more features then PSNcross game chat, thats about it, PSN also has Facebook, last fm, and twitter, and guess what, a fully functional (yet not perfected) Web Browser. This is a new point as all previous console generations didn't put too much importance on online, until this generation. Not as important as Point #1 or #2, but still relevant.

When to Use: Whenever a PS3 fanboy says PSN is equal/superior to LIVE. it is since the only thing Live has above PSN is cross game chat, yet it offers the same features FOR FREE

What to Say: At the very least, say that LIVE has cross-game chatting and the LIVE party system (allowing 8 friends to be together in any game, or in constant communication even if they are doing 8 different things). see above

IMPORTANT: PS3 fanboys seem to think online is only about multiplayer gamingwell on a gaming console it is. It is your job to say that true online (LIVE) is about anything and everything that requires the internet, not just mere multiplayer gaming.yeah, like facebook, twitter, last fm, PLAYSTATION HOME

- Trueskill matchmaking: Players matched are in similar leader board standings, ensuring more even matches. PSN on the other hand merely matches whoever is available, no matter their skill level.that actually depends on the game, MW2 and all multiplatforms for that matter use the same matchamking on both consoles

- Standard headset: Since launch, 360's are bundled with headsets. PS3's have never been bundled with headsets. Tell them in LIVE people actually team up and communicate where as PSN is full of uncoordinated mutes. In the event a PS3 fanboy says LIVE is full of screaming kids, say that you can mute them easily as well as say that more often then not you have serious gamers that you can team up with. Either way, its better then mutes that do whatever they want without helping the team. you get no argument from me here. but bluetooth headsets are as cheap as 10 bucks anyway, and truly cooperative players always get a mic

-Custom soundtrack for 100% 360 games: Just a nice feature we have. PS3 only has a certain few games that support it. We have it universally. neat

- Video store, Netflix: We got those first. PSN got those second, as they are the second class service. you got it first, but now PS3 has it, hell even WII has it, so you have no real argument there mate

- Where our $50 goes to: Bribes (lol). Ever wonder why we have Mass Effect 2 and Splinter Cell Conviction not coming to PS3, despite the developers being true MULTIPLAT developers? How other 3rd party games like Metro 2033, Supreme Commander 2, Tropico 3, Last Remnant, all don't have a PS3 version? Wonder why we get all the DLC first (MW2 for example)? Ever wonder why we get so many more XBLA games that never make it to PSN? Wonder why we get exclusive demos that PSN doesn't get? Wonder why we get so many timed exclusives that don't make it to PS3 until months or a year later (Lost Planet, Bioshock, Rock Band 2, GRAW 2, Splinter Cell Double Agent, Orange Box, GTA 4 Lost and Damned, GTA 4 Ballad of Gay Tony, etc. last remnant is on PS3, lost planet was even before the PS3 console launch, GRAW 2 had a simultaneous release and whats the point of paying for timed exclusivity? if everyone else gets the stuff in the end

- Also note that PS3 games are not all dedicated servers, as they seem to think. Also you can tell them that dedicated servers get closed eventually, where as P2P servers last as long as their are gamers to play on them. who said PS3 has dedicated servers on all games, but is a sure fact that there is hell of a lot more games that use dedicated servers than games on the 360

- Also bring up Qore, how its $25 per year on PSN, and how we have that service for free (Inside Xbox).i dont know what exactly qore offers so i shut up here

- Don't forget that if they ever bring up HOME, say that it is a spectacular waste of time. since xbox brags so much about having an online service not entirely focused on gaming but also social services is weird how they call HOME a waste of time

Other Important Talking Points

Hardware Tech Isn't a Priority - Bring up the Xbox, PS2, Gamecube generation as well as this one for evidence. These two generations are the most current and therefore the most compelling evidence. The XBox had the tech and power. Built in hard drive, 4 controller ports, DLC, patches, superior online, superior graphics, reliable......yet it lost to the PS2. Sony gamers proved that they value games over console tech. Same with this generation as the Wii is winning despite it being the weakest from a features/tech standpoint. The PS3, being the most powerful console, also has the least market share, showing just how gamers prefer games over whats under the hood. with PS3, you get both

Reliability Isn't That Big a Issue HOW THE FUCK CAN YOU SAY THIS WITH A STRAIGHT FACE?- Bring up the Xbox, PS2, Gamecube generation as well as this one for evidence.These two generations are the most current and therefore the most compelling evidence. The PS2 was the least reliable of that generation, yet the gamers didn't care. Instead they focused on what the PS2 offered: games. The PS2 won that generation. This generation, the 360 is the least reliable, yet it is still selling well since the PS3 launched. It is still retaining 2nd place after all that bad publicity. Why? Because it has more A, AA, AAA games then PS3 (See Point #2). Gamers go for the games first, even Sony fanboys last gen. Remind them of that. Finally remind them that the reliability rate vastly improved since launch. PS2 had its faults but nowhere near a 54% total failure rate http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/101/1014486p1.html

List of PS3 (and Sony) Flaws - Inferior multiplats (Bayonetta being the most recent example) due to their all mighty cell rocessor being so difficult to program for, lack of gamers buying plus expensive developing costs alienate developers (like VALVE) to not develop for the PS3 at all, PSN started out mediocre and is still today not on par with LIVE, no standard headset, mandatory installs of up to 5 gigs (we have optional and the 360 versions require mere megabytes to save optional?, megabytes? trolololololololol), no backwards compatibility with PS2, Linux support lost, and offcourse it doesn't help that Sony doesn't have the money or power to secure any 360/PC games for their console, or DLC. thats up to developers PSN started out mediocre, but now its only 1 feature away from LIVE (see above), and guess what, it is still free

Fun Fact: The PS3 has also cost Sony 5 billion dollars at least by now where as Microsoft has been turning a profit for the 360 for years now. http://www.joystiq.com/2009/10/30/ps3-has-lost-sony-4-7-billion-may-be-profitable-next-year/

oh yeah, because microsoft is going to give that money to you, right?

YES THEY WILL

aaawh sweet, how does that work?

Colonel_Campbell wrote:

Lt Xplosi wrote:

Colonel_Campbell wrote:

GeneralMLD wrote:

This is a draft of the Golden 3 Points. Through your suggestions we will make changes. I will then make vids directed at PS3 fanboys and prove to you that with the 3 points you are untouchable in an argument. But for now, let's review and fine tune the formula.

The Golden 3 Points: The Blueprint to Own Any PS3 Fanboy

Point #1: Sales/Marketshare

Relevant Web Sites: www.vgchartz.com

Note: This will always be our point as long as the 360 maintains a lead over PS3 in total, global sales.

When to Use: Whenever a PS3 fanboy talks down to you, Microsoft, and/or the 360.

What to Say: Remind them that it is you who is their superior. Your corporation is beating theirs, they screwed up by going from #1 to #3. You can never say this too much.

If a PS3 fanboy is saying cons about the 360, let them continue and finish. The more the better. When they are finished, reply with "I don't know whats more embarrassing, the fact that 360 has those cons, or the fact that PS3 is LOOSING to those cons. PS3 loosing to the RROD, PS3 is loosing to LIVE fees, etc". They essentially dig their own grave, admitting that PS3 is getting its ass kicked by something they think is so flawed. RROD that hasnt been completely fixed and then the Error 74 comes up to say hi, Live is not beating PSN, there is far more active PSN thanks to being free

The PS3 fanboy might say something like "All you do is talk about sales"in fact, you do. It is actually them trying to trick you into changing the subject as they can't counter you here. You could continue to hammer it in that they are last placebcause it was released/rushed 1 year ahead than the PS3 and Wii (trust me it will get on their nerves as it sinks in).......or you can resort to Point #2.

If a PS3 fanboy says that since PS3 released that its been consistently outselling the 360, say that the 360 actually outsold PS3 in 2008. Also jokingly say 2005 and 2006 as years the 360 outsold the PS3. Because as much as they don't like it, we count sales since the generation began. You come to the gen late, you pay the consequences. 1 year ahead, rush out a product and you get RROD, although sony didnt do a good marketing(this is living commercials), you got no argument from me there.

Point #2: Games Library

Relevant Web Sites:

http://www.metacritic.com/games/ps3/scores/ PS3 Best Reviewed Games of All Time
http://www.metacritic.com/games/xbox360/scores/ 360 Best Reviewed Games of All Time
please note how there are far more acclaimed exclusives (85+) for PS3

Note: This will always be our point as long as the 360 maintains a lead over PS3 in total A (70-79%), AA (80-89%), and AAA (90+) games.

When to Use: Whenever a PS3 fanboy says their games are superior then Xbox 360s. our exclusives are iin fact, superior

What to Say:

Give them the two links right away. Show them that you have evidence that they are wrong. If they are too irrational to be dealt with, revert back to Point #1 as that is the only thing they might comprehend, as learning the PS3 has an inferior library is too much for their mind to process.last christmass i was having a blast with uncharted 2, what you guys got? a 60$ halo 3, 5 hour expansion?

There are three PS3 fanboy explanations upon seeing the two links.

1. Many fo the 360s games are old/have been released before the PS3. i still play splinter cell chaos theory, you follow?

You respond: So by your logic Metal Gear Solid 4 will be considered "old" in a couple years and therefore isn't worth anybodies time? Insert many older PS3 exclusives like Resistance 1/2, Killzone 2, etc. and say how according to them, they will all be "trash" in a few years since they will be too "old". Finish off by telling them "As long as it is a current gen game, it is relevant". Also throw in that their quality doesn't diminish and that due to their age they are cheap to buy, therefore they actually still sell reasonably well given their age. i can agree with you here, good games are always good games

2. Many of those games on 360 are multiplat (also on PC or otherwise).

Here is where you stay firm. Ask them "Can PS3 play those games?"no, but are they a reason to buy a 360? no, they are a reason to buy a PC. They will reply with that they can play the game on the other platforms. Keep asking them the question until they answer. Hammer it home that the 360 can play the games and PS3 CAN'T. You can also say "Why are you hiding behind other platforms, I thought PS3 was so awesome by itself"it is, we have exclusives that are superior in quality and variety, or "Can't you guys be true men and stand behind your console without resorting to others to help it, we stand behind our console", and finally "LOL your using a platform that is 90% run on Microsoft software to help Sony fight Microsoft in the console space?" no, that would be retarded Also revert to point #1 to remind them they are last place and therefore don't have the right to say what counts and what doesn't count.

"If it's on 360 and not on PS3, it counts, exclusive or otherwise". LOL!!!

3. "I don't care what they say. In my opinion the PS3 has a better library". it does, see above

You better hope they say this because this is the most fun to respond to. Time to throw them a little math. Give them two equations.

Opinion = Opinion

Basically you think 360 has a better library. They think PS3 has a better library. They cancel each other out. Both opinions are just that, opinions.

Opinion + Industry Opinion > Opinion Opinion + Industry Opinion = Opinion fixed that for ya

You have the backing of the gaming industry. Metacritic takes the average of DOZENS of reviewers, people who make it their JOB to review games. They are a part of the industry we value so much and their opinions are simply viewed as more professional then the average gamer (like it or not). To say that your opinion has the backing of the GAMING INDUSTRY and theirs doesn't, you are effectively saying their opinion is wrong, that they are delusional, that they have bad taste.not bad taste, different taste Because your tastes are supported by the very industry itself.oh yeah, the almighty "industry", they are not just mere humans, right?

SPECIAL NOTE CONCERNING THE WORD "EXCLUSIVE": You do not view who has a better library in terms of just exclusives.actually, thats how you do it If a PS3 fanboy throws that word around, simply say you are above that, that we use a higher method of comparing libraries. Also throw in point #1 to say that they are in no place to say that just exclusives count. Exclusives are only a piece of the pie, we use the whole picture when doing a comparison. Because while exclusives are nice, many multiplats NOT on the competition also play a key role in defining a consolemultiplats are not a key role, the key role here is advertisment, how can they define a console if they are the same thing on both consoles . That is why 360 gamers value not just exclusives, but 360 multiplats NOT on PS3lol wut. Both are games that the PS3 can't play. The fact that some are available elsewhere are irrelevant to us, just so long as PS3 doesn't get it.HA HA HA OH WOW, you realize you get the inferior versions of the PC games? thats lik saying the iPhone is better because it has Plants Vs Zombies and the 360 doesnt


Point #3: Online

Relevant Web Sites: None for now.

Note: This will always be our point as long as Xbox LIVE has more features then PSNcross game chat, thats about it, PSN also has Facebook, last fm, and twitter, and guess what, a fully functional (yet not perfected) Web Browser. This is a new point as all previous console generations didn't put too much importance on online, until this generation. Not as important as Point #1 or #2, but still relevant.

When to Use: Whenever a PS3 fanboy says PSN is equal/superior to LIVE. it is since the only thing Live has above PSN is cross game chat, yet it offers the same features FOR FREE

What to Say: At the very least, say that LIVE has cross-game chatting and the LIVE party system (allowing 8 friends to be together in any game, or in constant communication even if they are doing 8 different things). see above

IMPORTANT: PS3 fanboys seem to think online is only about multiplayer gamingwell on a gaming console it is. It is your job to say that true online (LIVE) is about anything and everything that requires the internet, not just mere multiplayer gaming.yeah, like facebook, twitter, last fm, PLAYSTATION HOME

- Trueskill matchmaking: Players matched are in similar leader board standings, ensuring more even matches. PSN on the other hand merely matches whoever is available, no matter their skill level.that actually depends on the game, MW2 and all multiplatforms for that matter use the same matchamking on both consoles

- Standard headset: Since launch, 360's are bundled with headsets. PS3's have never been bundled with headsets. Tell them in LIVE people actually team up and communicate where as PSN is full of uncoordinated mutes. In the event a PS3 fanboy says LIVE is full of screaming kids, say that you can mute them easily as well as say that more often then not you have serious gamers that you can team up with. Either way, its better then mutes that do whatever they want without helping the team. you get no argument from me here. but bluetooth headsets are as cheap as 10 bucks anyway, and truly cooperative players always get a mic

-Custom soundtrack for 100% 360 games: Just a nice feature we have. PS3 only has a certain few games that support it. We have it universally. neat

- Video store, Netflix: We got those first. PSN got those second, as they are the second class service. you got it first, but now PS3 has it, hell even WII has it, so you have no real argument there mate

- Where our $50 goes to: Bribes (lol). Ever wonder why we have Mass Effect 2 and Splinter Cell Conviction not coming to PS3, despite the developers being true MULTIPLAT developers? How other 3rd party games like Metro 2033, Supreme Commander 2, Tropico 3, Last Remnant, all don't have a PS3 version? Wonder why we get all the DLC first (MW2 for example)? Ever wonder why we get so many more XBLA games that never make it to PSN? Wonder why we get exclusive demos that PSN doesn't get? Wonder why we get so many timed exclusives that don't make it to PS3 until months or a year later (Lost Planet, Bioshock, Rock Band 2, GRAW 2, Splinter Cell Double Agent, Orange Box, GTA 4 Lost and Damned, GTA 4 Ballad of Gay Tony, etc. last remnant is on PS3, lost planet was even before the PS3 console launch, GRAW 2 had a simultaneous release and whats the point of paying for timed exclusivity? if everyone else gets the stuff in the end

- Also note that PS3 games are not all dedicated servers, as they seem to think. Also you can tell them that dedicated servers get closed eventually, where as P2P servers last as long as their are gamers to play on them. who said PS3 has dedicated servers on all games, but is a sure fact that there is hell of a lot more games that use dedicated servers than games on the 360

- Also bring up Qore, how its $25 per year on PSN, and how we have that service for free (Inside Xbox).i dont know what exactly qore offers so i shut up here

- Don't forget that if they ever bring up HOME, say that it is a spectacular waste of time. since xbox brags so much about having an online service not entirely focused on gaming but also social services is weird how they call HOME a waste of time

Other Important Talking Points

Hardware Tech Isn't a Priority - Bring up the Xbox, PS2, Gamecube generation as well as this one for evidence. These two generations are the most current and therefore the most compelling evidence. The XBox had the tech and power. Built in hard drive, 4 controller ports, DLC, patches, superior online, superior graphics, reliable......yet it lost to the PS2. Sony gamers proved that they value games over console tech. Same with this generation as the Wii is winning despite it being the weakest from a features/tech standpoint. The PS3, being the most powerful console, also has the least market share, showing just how gamers prefer games over whats under the hood. with PS3, you get both

Reliability Isn't That Big a Issue HOW THE FUCK CAN YOU SAY THIS WITH A STRAIGHT FACE?- Bring up the Xbox, PS2, Gamecube generation as well as this one for evidence.These two generations are the most current and therefore the most compelling evidence. The PS2 was the least reliable of that generation, yet the gamers didn't care. Instead they focused on what the PS2 offered: games. The PS2 won that generation. This generation, the 360 is the least reliable, yet it is still selling well since the PS3 launched. It is still retaining 2nd place after all that bad publicity. Why? Because it has more A, AA, AAA games then PS3 (See Point #2). Gamers go for the games first, even Sony fanboys last gen. Remind them of that. Finally remind them that the reliability rate vastly improved since launch. PS2 had its faults but nowhere near a 54% total failure rate http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/101/1014486p1.html

List of PS3 (and Sony) Flaws - Inferior multiplats (Bayonetta being the most recent example) due to their all mighty cell rocessor being so difficult to program for, lack of gamers buying plus expensive developing costs alienate developers (like VALVE) to not develop for the PS3 at all, PSN started out mediocre and is still today not on par with LIVE, no standard headset, mandatory installs of up to 5 gigs (we have optional and the 360 versions require mere megabytes to save optional?, megabytes? trolololololololol), no backwards compatibility with PS2, Linux support lost, and offcourse it doesn't help that Sony doesn't have the money or power to secure any 360/PC games for their console, or DLC. thats up to developers PSN started out mediocre, but now its only 1 feature away from LIVE (see above), and guess what, it is still free

Fun Fact: The PS3 has also cost Sony 5 billion dollars at least by now where as Microsoft has been turning a profit for the 360 for years now. http://www.joystiq.com/2009/10/30/ps3-has-lost-sony-4-7-billion-may-be-profitable-next-year/

oh yeah, because microsoft is going to give that money to you, right?

YES THEY WILL

aaawh sweet, how does that work?

warranty my friend

Lt Xplosi wrote:

YES THEY WILL

Colonel_Campbell wrote:

aaawh sweet, how does that work?

Lt Xplosi wrote:

warranty my friend

Could I ask you two not to quote huge stuff like that multiple times when it really doesn't need to be repeated. You shouldn't have to scroll through an essay to read a few words. See the example above; its not too hard to quote just the important parts without keeping the whole thing and it makes the thread much easier to view.

EDIT: This also applies to the guy below me.

Colonel_Campbell wrote:

GeneralMLD wrote:

This is a draft of the Golden 3 Points. Through your suggestions we will make changes. I will then make vids directed at PS3 fanboys and prove to you that with the 3 points you are untouchable in an argument. But for now, let's review and fine tune the formula.

The Golden 3 Points: The Blueprint to Own Any PS3 Fanboy

Point #1: Sales/Marketshare

Relevant Web Sites: www.vgchartz.com

Note: This will always be our point as long as the 360 maintains a lead over PS3 in total, global sales.

When to Use: Whenever a PS3 fanboy talks down to you, Microsoft, and/or the 360.

What to Say: Remind them that it is you who is their superior. Your corporation is beating theirs, they screwed up by going from #1 to #3. You can never say this too much.

If a PS3 fanboy is saying cons about the 360, let them continue and finish. The more the better. When they are finished, reply with "I don't know whats more embarrassing, the fact that 360 has those cons, or the fact that PS3 is LOOSING to those cons. PS3 loosing to the RROD, PS3 is loosing to LIVE fees, etc". They essentially dig their own grave, admitting that PS3 is getting its ass kicked by something they think is so flawed. RROD that hasnt been completely fixed Doesnt change the fact that your LOOSING to it and then the Error 74 comes up to say hi LOL you admit your loosing to TWO hardware issues , Live is not beating PSN IT does when it has more features, there is far more active PSN thanks to being free and due to PSP and that Sony counts multiple accounts made for the same user

The PS3 fanboy might say something like "All you do is talk about sales"in fact, you do Cause its the one thing u cant counter. It is actually them trying to trick you into changing the subject as they can't counter you here. You could continue to hammer it in that they are last placebcause it was released/rushed 1 year ahead than the PS3 and Wii typical buthurt excuse for being last, PS2 did the same thing (trust me it will get on their nerves as it sinks in).......or you can resort to Point #2.

If a PS3 fanboy says that since PS3 released that its been consistently outselling the 360, say that the 360 actually outsold PS3 in 2008. Also jokingly say 2005 and 2006 as years the 360 outsold the PS3. Because as much as they don't like it, we count sales since the generation began. You come to the gen late, you pay the consequences. 1 year ahead, rush out a product and you get RROD, although sony didnt do a good marketing(this is living commercials), you got no argument from me there.

Point #2: Games Library

Relevant Web Sites:

http://www.metacritic.com/games/ps3/scores/ PS3 Best Reviewed Games of All Time
http://www.metacritic.com/games/xbox360/scores/ 360 Best Reviewed Games of All Time
please note how there are far more acclaimed exclusives (85+) for PS3
Please note that multiplats NOT on PS3 PLUS exclusives > exclusives. loser

Note: This will always be our point as long as the 360 maintains a lead over PS3 in total A (70-79%), AA (80-89%), and AAA (90+) games.

When to Use: Whenever a PS3 fanboy says their games are superior then Xbox 360s. our exclusives are iin fact, superior again, last place fanboys dont get a say in saying what games count. Only comparing exlcusives is closed minded. pretending 360 multiplats like Mass effect 2 or Left 4 Dead 2 dont exist are stupid

What to Say:

Give them the two links right away. Show them that you have evidence that they are wrong. If they are too irrational to be dealt with, revert back to Point #1 as that is the only thing they might comprehend, as learning the PS3 has an inferior library is too much for their mind to process.last christmass i was having a blast with uncharted 2, what you guys got? a 60$ halo 3, 5 hour expansion? Dont forget Left 4 Dead 2 and Forza 3. That 5 hour expansion was bought and played more then Uncharted 2 lol

There are three PS3 fanboy explanations upon seeing the two links.

1. Many fo the 360s games are old/have been released before the PS3. i still play splinter cell chaos theory, you follow? sure u do...

You respond: So by your logic Metal Gear Solid 4 will be considered "old" in a couple years and therefore isn't worth anybodies time? Insert many older PS3 exclusives like Resistance 1/2, Killzone 2, etc. and say how according to them, they will all be "trash" in a few years since they will be too "old". Finish off by telling them "As long as it is a current gen game, it is relevant". Also throw in that their quality doesn't diminish and that due to their age they are cheap to buy, therefore they actually still sell reasonably well given their age. i can agree with you here, good games are always good games

2. Many of those games on 360 are multiplat (also on PC or otherwise).

Here is where you stay firm. Ask them "Can PS3 play those games?"no, but are they a reason to buy a 360? no, they are a reason to buy a PC. wrong, many console only gamers see those games as a reason to buy 360 over PS3 They will reply with that they can play the game on the other platforms. Keep asking them the question until they answer. Hammer it home that the 360 can play the games and PS3 CAN'T. You can also say "Why are you hiding behind other platforms, I thought PS3 was so awesome by itself"it is, we have exclusives that are superior in quality and variety, yet they cant compare to 360 exclusives PLUS 360 multiplats not on PS3 , or "Can't you guys be true men and stand behind your console without resorting to others to help it, we stand behind our console", and finally "LOL your using a platform that is 90% run on Microsoft software to help Sony fight Microsoft in the console space?" no, that would be retarded Also revert to point #1 to remind them they are last place and therefore don't have the right to say what counts and what doesn't count.

"If it's on 360 and not on PS3, it counts, exclusive or otherwise". LOL!!! I dont see whats funny............360 multiplats NOT on PS3 sell more then most PS3 exclusives LOL

3. "I don't care what they say. In my opinion the PS3 has a better library". it does, see above see metacritic.....again.

You better hope they say this because this is the most fun to respond to. Time to throw them a little math. Give them two equations.

Opinion = Opinion

Basically you think 360 has a better library. They think PS3 has a better library. They cancel each other out. Both opinions are just that, opinions.

Opinion + Industry Opinion > Opinion Opinion + Industry Opinion = Opinion fixed that for ya lol what? you value last place fanboy opinions too much

You have the backing of the gaming industry. Metacritic takes the average of DOZENS of reviewers, people who make it their JOB to review games. They are a part of the industry we value so much and their opinions are simply viewed as more professional then the average gamer (like it or not). To say that your opinion has the backing of the GAMING INDUSTRY and theirs doesn't, you are effectively saying their opinion is wrong, that they are delusional, that they have bad taste.not bad taste, different taste Because your tastes are supported by the very industry itself.oh yeah, the almighty "industry", they are not just mere humans, right? humans that have more credibility then you

SPECIAL NOTE CONCERNING THE WORD "EXCLUSIVE": You do not view who has a better library in terms of just exclusives.actually, thats how you do it says who? last place fanboys? if that was right, left 4 dead, splinter cell conviction, and mass effect wouldnt do jack for 360s popularity right? If a PS3 fanboy throws that word around, simply say you are above that, that we use a higher method of comparing libraries. Also throw in point #1 to say that they are in no place to say that just exclusives count. Exclusives are only a piece of the pie, we use the whole picture when doing a comparison. Because while exclusives are nice, many multiplats NOT on the competition also play a key role in defining a consolemultiplats are not a key role, the key role here is advertisment, how can they define a console if they are the same thing on both consoles . again your delusional if you think gamers didnt buy a 360 for games like Mass Effect That is why 360 gamers value not just exclusives, but 360 multiplats NOT on PS3lol wut. Both are games that the PS3 can't play. The fact that some are available elsewhere are irrelevant to us, just so long as PS3 doesn't get it.HA HA HA OH WOW, you realize you get the inferior versions of the PC games? you realize the ps3 version DOESNT EXIST? thats lik saying the iPhone is better because it has Plants Vs Zombies and the 360 doesnt


[Other Important Talking Points

Hardware Tech Isn't a Priority - Bring up the Xbox, PS2, Gamecube generation as well as this one for evidence. These two generations are the most current and therefore the most compelling evidence. The XBox had the tech and power. Built in hard drive, 4 controller ports, DLC, patches, superior online, superior graphics, reliable......yet it lost to the PS2. Sony gamers proved that they value games over console tech. Same with this generation as the Wii is winning despite it being the weakest from a features/tech standpoint. The PS3, being the most powerful console, also has the least market share, showing just how gamers prefer games over whats under the hood. with PS3, you get both ya and it shows by how popular it is

Reliability Isn't That Big a Issue HOW THE FUCK CAN YOU SAY THIS WITH A STRAIGHT FACE?- Bring up the Xbox, PS2, Gamecube generation as well as this one for evidence.These two generations are the most current and therefore the most compelling evidence. The PS2 was the least reliable of that generation, yet the gamers didn't care. Instead they focused on what the PS2 offered: games. The PS2 won that generation. This generation, the 360 is the least reliable, yet it is still selling well since the PS3 launched. It is still retaining 2nd place after all that bad publicity. Why? Because it has more A, AA, AAA games then PS3 (See Point #2). Gamers go for the games first, even Sony fanboys last gen. Remind them of that. Finally remind them that the reliability rate vastly improved since launch. PS2 had its faults but nowhere near a 54% total failure rate but still was the least reliable http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/101/1014486p1.html

List of PS3 (and Sony) Flaws - Inferior multiplats (Bayonetta being the most recent example)bad example, multiplats are now the same thing on both lol delusional (red dead redemption) , bayonetta is now a rare case, not the common factor due to their all mighty cell rocessor being so difficult to program fori have yet to see a game on the 360 that has as good graphics as killzone 2, uncharted, resistance, or god of war 3 (handful of games at best and arent that big a gap) lack of gamers buying plus expensive developing costs alienate developers (like VALVEvalve has their reasons, they only develop for the 360 for having an architecture similar to the PC, valve is mainly PC developers nice job sony alienating them ) to not develop for the PS3 at all, PSN started out mediocre and is still today not on par with LIVE, no standard headset, mandatory installs of up to 5 gigs (we have optional and the 360 versions require mere megabytes to save optional?, megabytes? ya.......360 games need megabytes to save. big difference eh? ), no backwards compatibility with PS2, Linux support lost, and offcourse it doesn't help that Sony doesn't have the money or power to secure any 360/PC games for their console, or DLC. thats up to developers ya thats KINDA a big thing PSN started out mediocre, but now its only 1 feature away from LIVE (see above), and guess what, it is still free thats the main feature, but certainly not the only one

Fun Fact: The PS3 has also cost Sony 5 billion dollars at least by now where as Microsoft has been turning a profit for the 360 for years now. http://www.joystiq.com/2009/10/30/ps3-has-lost-sony-4-7-billion-may-be-profitable-next-year/

oh yeah, because microsoft is going to give that money to you, right?

Online is too much of a grey area. So its out.

But as long as you have less marketshare, and as long as you have less A, AA, AAA games.............you are the bitch, by default, and nothing will change that.

Gentlemen, you all require a rather good dicking.

Is your argument that "A, AA, AAA" games appear more frequently on the Xbox 360?
Is your argument that reviews are meaningful in some way?
Is your argument that the Playstation 3 does not have superior hardware.

It sure sounds like it.

In case of points 1 and 2 you will find that on Metacritic there are more Playstation 3 exclusives with an 85+ score than 360 exclusives. Excluding HD updates you will find that the Playstation 3 has 20 and the Xbox 360 has 11, despite having more time for developers to create these fantastic games. As for the hardware issue, it is a simple fact that the Playstation 3 offers the better hardware.

I cannot understand the argument here.

But what do I know?

Video games are just my favourite video games and nothing more.

VIDEOGAMES wrote:

Gentlemen, you all require a rather good dicking.

Is your argument that "A, AA, AAA" games appear more frequently on the Xbox 360?
Is your argument that reviews are meaningful in some way?
Is your argument that the Playstation 3 does not have superior hardware.

It sure sounds like it.

In case of points 1 and 2 you will find that on Metacritic there are more Playstation 3 exclusives with an 85+ score than 360 exclusives. Excluding HD updates you will find that the Playstation 3 has 20 and the Xbox 360 has 11, despite having more time for developers to create these fantastic games. As for the hardware issue, it is a simple fact that the Playstation 3 offers the better hardware.

I cannot understand the argument here.

But what do I know?

Video games are just my favourite video games and nothing more.

1 and 2 are right, #3 is wrong. PS3 arguably may have superior hardware, but that in no way makes it the "best" overall, nor the winner.

Just comparing exclusives, thats the core of PS3 fanboy stupidity. MS MAIN strategy isnt to secure exclusives, but to secure multiplats NOT on PS3.

What you do is essentially say that 360 titles like Left 4 Dead 1/2, Gears of War 1, Mass Effect 1/2, Splinter Cell Conviction, and upcoming games like Fable 3 are in fact meaningless because you can play them on your PC.

Well that sir, is one of the most ridiculous arguments ive ever seen, not to mention you ADMIT you need to PC to fight your PS3 battles in a STRICT 360 vs PS3 debate.

Who are you..........a last place fanboy, to say only exclusives should count? It is closed minded and frankly DATED thinking.

Leave the rule making to people that arent the bitch of the industry.

Best,

GeneralMLD

GeneralMLD wrote:

Best,

GeneralMLD

I'm not sure about this, but I thought we were talking about consoles and not companies.

I can't see how you can call them Xbox 360 exclusives if they are on PC too. Maybe you should admit that when we talk about most non-portable gaming platforms in general (PC, 360, PS3 and Wii) – PlayStation 3 offers more things over 360 as a single platform.
Of course, if we keep arguing like we were consumers who are going to buy their first console ever, we can't see significant difference between 360 and PS3 only. But if we argue as a know-it-all gamers it might really matter which console we buy...

As a gamer who also loves videogames I don't care about marketing and marketing strategies. I only need platform and with good games, or multiple platforms with even more good games!

About the hardware though, if 360s really RRODs as much as they say (also, my friend's did), i think PS3 has at least more reliable hardware.

But once again, my 360 hasn't RROD'd yet and I still love my halo – the best shooter ever.

GeneralMLD wrote:

Colonel_Campbell wrote:

GeneralMLD wrote:

This is a draft of the Golden 3 Points. Through your suggestions we will make changes. I will then make vids directed at PS3 fanboys and prove to you that with the 3 points you are untouchable in an argument. But for now, let's review and fine tune the formula.

The Golden 3 Points: The Blueprint to Own Any PS3 Fanboy

Point #1: Sales/Marketshare

Relevant Web Sites: www.vgchartz.com

Note: This will always be our point as long as the 360 maintains a lead over PS3 in total, global sales.

When to Use: Whenever a PS3 fanboy talks down to you, Microsoft, and/or the 360.

What to Say: Remind them that it is you who is their superior. Your corporation is beating theirs, they screwed up by going from #1 to #3. You can never say this too much.

If a PS3 fanboy is saying cons about the 360, let them continue and finish. The more the better. When they are finished, reply with "I don't know whats more embarrassing, the fact that 360 has those cons, or the fact that PS3 is LOOSING to those cons. PS3 loosing to the RROD, PS3 is loosing to LIVE fees, etc". They essentially dig their own grave, admitting that PS3 is getting its ass kicked by something they think is so flawed. RROD that hasnt been completely fixed Doesnt change the fact that your LOOSING to it and then the Error 74 comes up to say hi LOL you admit your loosing to TWO hardware issues , Live is not beating PSN IT does when it has more features, there is far more active PSN thanks to being free and due to PSP and that Sony counts multiple accounts made for the same user

The PS3 fanboy might say something like "All you do is talk about sales"in fact, you do Cause its the one thing u cant counter. It is actually them trying to trick you into changing the subject as they can't counter you here. You could continue to hammer it in that they are last placebcause it was released/rushed 1 year ahead than the PS3 and Wii typical buthurt excuse for being last, PS2 did the same thing (trust me it will get on their nerves as it sinks in).......or you can resort to Point #2.

If a PS3 fanboy says that since PS3 released that its been consistently outselling the 360, say that the 360 actually outsold PS3 in 2008. Also jokingly say 2005 and 2006 as years the 360 outsold the PS3. Because as much as they don't like it, we count sales since the generation began. You come to the gen late, you pay the consequences. 1 year ahead, rush out a product and you get RROD, although sony didnt do a good marketing(this is living commercials), you got no argument from me there.

Point #2: Games Library

Relevant Web Sites:

http://www.metacritic.com/games/ps3/scores/ PS3 Best Reviewed Games of All Time
http://www.metacritic.com/games/xbox360/scores/ 360 Best Reviewed Games of All Time
please note how there are far more acclaimed exclusives (85+) for PS3
Please note that multiplats NOT on PS3 PLUS exclusives > exclusives. loser

Note: This will always be our point as long as the 360 maintains a lead over PS3 in total A (70-79%), AA (80-89%), and AAA (90+) games.

When to Use: Whenever a PS3 fanboy says their games are superior then Xbox 360s. our exclusives are iin fact, superior again, last place fanboys dont get a say in saying what games count. Only comparing exlcusives is closed minded. pretending 360 multiplats like Mass effect 2 or Left 4 Dead 2 dont exist are stupid

What to Say:

Give them the two links right away. Show them that you have evidence that they are wrong. If they are too irrational to be dealt with, revert back to Point #1 as that is the only thing they might comprehend, as learning the PS3 has an inferior library is too much for their mind to process.last christmass i was having a blast with uncharted 2, what you guys got? a 60$ halo 3, 5 hour expansion? Dont forget Left 4 Dead 2 and Forza 3. That 5 hour expansion was bought and played more then Uncharted 2 lol

There are three PS3 fanboy explanations upon seeing the two links.

1. Many fo the 360s games are old/have been released before the PS3. i still play splinter cell chaos theory, you follow? sure u do...

You respond: So by your logic Metal Gear Solid 4 will be considered "old" in a couple years and therefore isn't worth anybodies time? Insert many older PS3 exclusives like Resistance 1/2, Killzone 2, etc. and say how according to them, they will all be "trash" in a few years since they will be too "old". Finish off by telling them "As long as it is a current gen game, it is relevant". Also throw in that their quality doesn't diminish and that due to their age they are cheap to buy, therefore they actually still sell reasonably well given their age. i can agree with you here, good games are always good games

2. Many of those games on 360 are multiplat (also on PC or otherwise).

Here is where you stay firm. Ask them "Can PS3 play those games?"no, but are they a reason to buy a 360? no, they are a reason to buy a PC. wrong, many console only gamers see those games as a reason to buy 360 over PS3 They will reply with that they can play the game on the other platforms. Keep asking them the question until they answer. Hammer it home that the 360 can play the games and PS3 CAN'T. You can also say "Why are you hiding behind other platforms, I thought PS3 was so awesome by itself"it is, we have exclusives that are superior in quality and variety, yet they cant compare to 360 exclusives PLUS 360 multiplats not on PS3 , or "Can't you guys be true men and stand behind your console without resorting to others to help it, we stand behind our console", and finally "LOL your using a platform that is 90% run on Microsoft software to help Sony fight Microsoft in the console space?" no, that would be retarded Also revert to point #1 to remind them they are last place and therefore don't have the right to say what counts and what doesn't count.

"If it's on 360 and not on PS3, it counts, exclusive or otherwise". LOL!!! I dont see whats funny............360 multiplats NOT on PS3 sell more then most PS3 exclusives LOL

3. "I don't care what they say. In my opinion the PS3 has a better library". it does, see above see metacritic.....again.

You better hope they say this because this is the most fun to respond to. Time to throw them a little math. Give them two equations.

Opinion = Opinion

Basically you think 360 has a better library. They think PS3 has a better library. They cancel each other out. Both opinions are just that, opinions.

Opinion + Industry Opinion > Opinion Opinion + Industry Opinion = Opinion fixed that for ya lol what? you value last place fanboy opinions too much

You have the backing of the gaming industry. Metacritic takes the average of DOZENS of reviewers, people who make it their JOB to review games. They are a part of the industry we value so much and their opinions are simply viewed as more professional then the average gamer (like it or not). To say that your opinion has the backing of the GAMING INDUSTRY and theirs doesn't, you are effectively saying their opinion is wrong, that they are delusional, that they have bad taste.not bad taste, different taste Because your tastes are supported by the very industry itself.oh yeah, the almighty "industry", they are not just mere humans, right? humans that have more credibility then you

SPECIAL NOTE CONCERNING THE WORD "EXCLUSIVE": You do not view who has a better library in terms of just exclusives.actually, thats how you do it says who? last place fanboys? if that was right, left 4 dead, splinter cell conviction, and mass effect wouldnt do jack for 360s popularity right? If a PS3 fanboy throws that word around, simply say you are above that, that we use a higher method of comparing libraries. Also throw in point #1 to say that they are in no place to say that just exclusives count. Exclusives are only a piece of the pie, we use the whole picture when doing a comparison. Because while exclusives are nice, many multiplats NOT on the competition also play a key role in defining a consolemultiplats are not a key role, the key role here is advertisment, how can they define a console if they are the same thing on both consoles . again your delusional if you think gamers didnt buy a 360 for games like Mass Effect That is why 360 gamers value not just exclusives, but 360 multiplats NOT on PS3lol wut. Both are games that the PS3 can't play. The fact that some are available elsewhere are irrelevant to us, just so long as PS3 doesn't get it.HA HA HA OH WOW, you realize you get the inferior versions of the PC games? you realize the ps3 version DOESNT EXIST? thats lik saying the iPhone is better because it has Plants Vs Zombies and the 360 doesnt


[Other Important Talking Points

Hardware Tech Isn't a Priority - Bring up the Xbox, PS2, Gamecube generation as well as this one for evidence. These two generations are the most current and therefore the most compelling evidence. The XBox had the tech and power. Built in hard drive, 4 controller ports, DLC, patches, superior online, superior graphics, reliable......yet it lost to the PS2. Sony gamers proved that they value games over console tech. Same with this generation as the Wii is winning despite it being the weakest from a features/tech standpoint. The PS3, being the most powerful console, also has the least market share, showing just how gamers prefer games over whats under the hood. with PS3, you get both ya and it shows by how popular it is

Reliability Isn't That Big a Issue HOW THE FUCK CAN YOU SAY THIS WITH A STRAIGHT FACE?- Bring up the Xbox, PS2, Gamecube generation as well as this one for evidence.These two generations are the most current and therefore the most compelling evidence. The PS2 was the least reliable of that generation, yet the gamers didn't care. Instead they focused on what the PS2 offered: games. The PS2 won that generation. This generation, the 360 is the least reliable, yet it is still selling well since the PS3 launched. It is still retaining 2nd place after all that bad publicity. Why? Because it has more A, AA, AAA games then PS3 (See Point #2). Gamers go for the games first, even Sony fanboys last gen. Remind them of that. Finally remind them that the reliability rate vastly improved since launch. PS2 had its faults but nowhere near a 54% total failure rate but still was the least reliable http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/101/1014486p1.html

List of PS3 (and Sony) Flaws - Inferior multiplats (Bayonetta being the most recent example)bad example, multiplats are now the same thing on both lol delusional (red dead redemption) , bayonetta is now a rare case, not the common factor due to their all mighty cell rocessor being so difficult to program fori have yet to see a game on the 360 that has as good graphics as killzone 2, uncharted, resistance, or god of war 3 (handful of games at best and arent that big a gap) lack of gamers buying plus expensive developing costs alienate developers (like VALVEvalve has their reasons, they only develop for the 360 for having an architecture similar to the PC, valve is mainly PC developers nice job sony alienating them ) to not develop for the PS3 at all, PSN started out mediocre and is still today not on par with LIVE, no standard headset, mandatory installs of up to 5 gigs (we have optional and the 360 versions require mere megabytes to save optional?, megabytes? ya.......360 games need megabytes to save. big difference eh? ), no backwards compatibility with PS2, Linux support lost, and offcourse it doesn't help that Sony doesn't have the money or power to secure any 360/PC games for their console, or DLC. thats up to developers ya thats KINDA a big thing PSN started out mediocre, but now its only 1 feature away from LIVE (see above), and guess what, it is still free thats the main feature, but certainly not the only one

Fun Fact: The PS3 has also cost Sony 5 billion dollars at least by now where as Microsoft has been turning a profit for the 360 for years now. http://www.joystiq.com/2009/10/30/ps3-has-lost-sony-4-7-billion-may-be-profitable-next-year/

oh yeah, because microsoft is going to give that money to you, right?

Online is too much of a grey area. So its out.

But as long as you have less marketshare, and as long as you have less A, AA, AAA games.............you are the bitch, by default, and nothing will change that.

Yeah because sales=quality, right? whatever helps you sleep at night bro.

I never counted out PC/360 games

PS2 was released ahead of the xbox, the difference was from 120 million to 24 million
360 was released ahead of the PS3, the difference is from 40 million to 35
yeah, you guys are MILES away ahead, right? so much for being 1 year ahead


54% FAILURE RATE
54% FAILURE RATE
54% FAILURE RATE
54% FAILURE RATE
54% FAILURE RATE
54% FAILURE RATE
54% FAILURE RATE
what? PS3 losing to it? yeah because it has nothing to do with microsoft keep this away from the uninformed masses or the fact that you people are too much of a sheep to not see that you support a company that has more than 50% failure rate on a product and hasnt fixed it in 5 years

now the rest of your arguments are just sales bullshit, so you are just trying too hard or not trying at all

now last, Why you banned me?? why so mad? because i replied to you? is not like truth hurts or anything

Colonel_Campbell_Revives wrote:

Yeah because sales=quality, right? whatever helps you sleep at night bro.

I never counted out PC/360 games

PS2 was released ahead of the xbox, the difference was from 120 million to 24 million
360 was released ahead of the PS3, the difference is from 40 million to 35
yeah, you guys are MILES away ahead, right? so much for being 1 year ahead


54% FAILURE RATE
54% FAILURE RATE
54% FAILURE RATE
54% FAILURE RATE
54% FAILURE RATE
54% FAILURE RATE
54% FAILURE RATE
what? PS3 losing to it? yeah because it has nothing to do with microsoft keep this away from the uninformed masses or the fact that you people are too much of a sheep to not see that you support a company that has more than 50% failure rate on a product and hasnt fixed it in 5 years

now the rest of your arguments are just sales bullshit, so you are just trying too hard or not trying at all

now last, Why you banned me?? why so mad? because i replied to you? is not like truth hurts or anything

lol ps3 fanboy mad that not everyone likes his shitty console

I'm going to have to agree that a game being multiplatform doesn't make it worthless. You can still enjoy a game even if it is on another system all the same. Comparing the number of exclusives is deceptive when there are more than 2 platforms to choose from. However, I don't think its fair to ignore PC just because it suits the argument better. It may not be as popular these days, but it is still a factor. The best way to do it is to just add up all the games that appeals to you (including multiplatforms) for each platform to see which is the best. Personally, I still think the best way to settle an argument is to agree on differences and just enjoy playing games. However, I tend to be too idealistic so I know this isn't going to happen when people feel the need to put others down to make themselves feel more secure like colonel cambell above (Who also quoted the whole thing again. Y'all are going to drive me crazy with this.)

5cm wrote:

I'm going to have to agree that a game being multiplatform doesn't make it worthless. You can still enjoy a game even if it is on another system all the same. Comparing the number of exclusives is deceptive when there are more than 2 platforms to choose from. However, I don't think its fair to ignore PC just because it suits the argument better. It may not be as popular these days, but it is still a factor. The best way to do it is to just add up all the games that appeals to you (including multiplatforms) for each platform to see which is the best. Personally, I still think the best way to settle an argument is to agree on differences and just enjoy playing games. However, I tend to be too idealistic so I know this isn't going to happen when people feel the need to put others down to make themselves feel more secure.

I love your logic but yes not probable.

[quote="Colonel_Campbell_Revives"][quote="GeneralMLD"][quote="Colonel_Campbell"]

GeneralMLD wrote:

This is a draft of the Golden 3 Points. Through your suggestions we will make changes. I will then make vids directed at PS3 fanboys and prove to you that with the 3 points you are untouchable in an argument. But for now, let's review and fine tune the formula.

The Golden 3 Points: The Blueprint to Own Any PS3 Fanboy

Yeah because sales=quality, right? whatever helps you sleep at night bro.

A, AA, AAA equals quality you idiot. Sales = winner
I never counted out PC/360 games

PS2 was released ahead of the xbox, the difference was from 120 million to 24 million
360 was released ahead of the PS3, the difference is from 40 million to 35
yeah, you guys are MILES away ahead, right? so much for being 1 year ahead

LOL you just admitted just how far SOny fell from the top


54% FAILURE RATE
54% FAILURE RATE
54% FAILURE RATE
54% FAILURE RATE
54% FAILURE RATE
54% FAILURE RATE
54% FAILURE RATE

PS3 is LOOSING to 54% LOL

what? PS3 losing to it? yeah because it has nothing to do with microsoft keep this away from the uninformed masses or the fact that you people are too much of a sheep to not see that you support a company that has more than 50% failure rate on a product and hasnt fixed it in 5 years

Pussies make excuses. Men DEAL with the results. You sir, are making excuses as to why your last place.

now the rest of your arguments are just sales bullshit, so you are just trying too hard or not trying at all

Sales AND A, AA, AAA, which we still got

now last, Why you banned me?? why so mad? because i replied to you? is not like truth hurts or anything

Mad? I ban filth. You are filth. Lol end of story. Why would I be mad when Im not the bitch of the industry.......

I came here after seeing this thread mentioned on another site.

I own a PC that I built and a PlayStation 3 that I bought/repaired in 2008 shortly after E3 that year.

I read over this site's registration agreement and I understand I'm in a snake pit but I did want to post regardless.
I can see my post being deleted and my account being banned just for being here but I hope others might see how that would be sort of pathetic. I'll refrain from taunts because that's just not how to act in someone else's house. But if my post is deleted in the end, I suppose that would indicate I had influenced someone.

I simply cannot represent the majority of PS3 owners. I have friends who own either PS3s or Xboxes and while we may play the same games occasionally, it's obvious that we're on different levels. But I will attempt to explain myself and a few others out there who are probably like me.



First a little back story on me. I am 17. My first console was a Nintendo 64. I got in late because my mom never wanted me to play games, but my aunt from out of state managed to contact me during the Christmas of '00 and I told her how badly I wanted that Nintendo. I got it, to my mom's disquietude. It arrived with Super Mario 64. I Played it to completion.



After 10 years of time for reflection, I can appreciate what Nintendo does and I believe the basis of many a well-brought-up gamer (if there can be such a thing) is having your first game be an excellent one. 1st impressions stand forever. This isn't to say someone who didn't spend time with masterful games in their early days is ruined; It just helps to have a stalwart reference point for future gaming experiences and especially game creation if one chooses to pursue such a career.



2 years later I had my first game-capable PC and a GameCube. For want of certain games, A PS2 came next and finally an Xbox. In the end I probably spent the most time with my Xbox. Halo 2 was something remarkable for the time and brought a number of innovations to online console multiplayer that have increased it's accessibility and enjoyability tenfold. I was addicted and hyped like hell for the Xbox 360 which was announced not too long after. I was there for Our Colony, the update of the official Xbox forums, and the Mojave Desert launch party. My friends got 360s and I played them all the time, creating my new gamertag Surfaced, planning for something that would finally endure, instead of something I get sick of after a while, like a fad. I still use that alias and have my old 64MB mem card with my favorite wood-styled theme on it from the old 'Blades' GUI. But my world came crashing down when my plans for getting my own 360 were crushed indefinitely.



My family moved to CT and I had no friends. My free time was spent on my PC which I had slowly upgraded over the years since it was cheaper to buy used parts incrementally than to throw down the cash (that I didn't have) for the 360 I wanted. Time moved on. The nights I spent with my PC showed their taint. I found the deeper parts of the internet and incredible books/films and anime that collectively changed how I thought about everything. Loss of innocence. I think we've all got our story.



When the console prices started to fall and I had more money, I decided it was time I caught up with that scene. I figured E3 would give me a good idea of what everyone was offering.
I think it did that well.
In the few years I spent with nothing in my room but a desk, PC, and bed, I played my then-favorites of course, but also found time to play older things that I had missed, including most of the notables from X-COM to Vagrant Story to Bioshock. Soon I was kind of burnt out, and places like /v/ didn't help. The realization of cliches, ever-present themes, patterns of mechanic usage. It was the jading process, so to speak. There we go with impressions again. Less became enjoyable and more became eyerollable. Maybe it was a sign I should've given up with video games. The focus shifted from being exclusively about the gameplay to more about the stories, the ideas, the motives, the innovation (that's a hot word and I'll probably regret using it) and the developers behind the project. Gaming got intimate. Interests tightened for better or worse, and as I get older with more responsibilities I'm sad to admit I've got less time for things I want to do. I know this because hours feel like 20 minutes. So I've got to be somewhat selective now.



Games sell game consoles. But emulators have enabled play of games made for virtually all consoles up to and including the Wii on my personal computer. I recently bought Fragile Dreams with the intent of emulation. It was a nice 8 hours. Though there are 4 big exceptions to this: The PSP, the Xbox, Xbox 360, and the PS3. I have a PSP and Xbox already. I look at the 360's offering and I see very little that isn't available for Windows with higher resolutions and better framerates/anti-aliasing. Alan Wake recently had its Windows counterpart axed to start amending for this. And Alan Wake is the kind of game I think I'd really enjoy. So that's one. Though, there's that phenomenon with Microsoft's platform called the "timed exclusive". We should all be familiar with it by now. And I've read that Alan Wake hasn't been selling spectacularly, which saddens me. So it's difficult to say what will happen at this point. None of us know.



I'm not going to assemble a weightless list of names that somehow make Sony's platform the best, because people will be inclined to briefly detail (read: in one sentence or less) why each sucks. "Sucks" is a captivating word by the way. It's arguably the quintessence of fanboy arguments. And yet it has no substance or useful concrete meaning whatsoever. You shouldn't decide not to buy a game based solely on people having said "it sucks". Hopefully they told you something else, too! Or maybe you're in an entirely different boat, as getting free games is possible for Xbox 360 owners. I can see how they might be reduced to single-word labels when they're disposable DVDs with a black marker's denotations. Linux got the axe because it was the easiest way to enable the piracy of PS3 Blu-ray disc-based games.

So what's the argument about, anyway? I'm seeing this sales=winner thing and I don't quite get it. You're trying to prove that the Xbox 360 is a better console. The relative strength of that thesis depends on your interests. And those interests come from somewhere. Chiefly, from impressions that have been made upon you. Hey, look where we are again! Impressions. This could be important after all? I confess to having not read GeneralMLD's entire post but I did read the 2 points on the first page. Most of it read as expected but there was the part about the PS3's "inferior library". Which was a stop/consider point.



Inferior? Inferior in what manner? What is inferior? Is a game's worth sent into absolution by what a pack of professional reviewers' aggregated opinions indicate about it? So what you and I personally think about each of those games must mean almost nothing. Because years of passion can legitimately boil down to two digits. Two digits that show everything worth knowing. Isn't that so? Or maybe it's that other set of digits. That six or seven-figure set; the sales. Are those the numbers that tell all? The popular thing must be the best thing, no? My favorite game of 2008 was Mirror's Edge. Everyone agrees that DICE really dropped the ball with that one. Yet it has always been hard to find female protagonists in games who aren't sexualized. Or try a FPS that downplayed using weapons in favor of evasion. Moreover, that vertical maze in the atrium hit me. The sensation of wonderment that was ushered by Solar Field's amazing soundtrack is difficult to describe. Being lost in a video game has rarely felt so right.



A PS3 was the better console for my interests. I need only a small circle of friends. I don't want attention. I don't need the fact that everyone is playing/watching/listening to the same thing as me to validate myself and my decisions. I'm still a minor and money is hard for me to get so I appreciate not paying for a service I don't use frequently.
As I am, sales have almost no factor in what I hold to be worth my time. In fact, they might have a reverse-effect occasionally; I'd be more inclined to play something that went unappreciated or that is trying something very different. After being patched, Lair turned out to be more than worthwhile. Folklore has incredible art direction. Valkyria Chronicles' poetic intro marked the first time a game has made me tear-up, and while the story turns out to be nothing too remarkable, I've never played anything quite like it. Linger in Shadows was nothing short of evocative and .detuned is hilarious. Flower remains the most emotional game I've played to date despite having no human characters. Demon's Souls creates a menacing sense of atmosphere and mortality rivaled by only a few games like S.T.A.L.K.E.R.. 3D Dot Game Heroes is a delectable and comic homage to the kings of gaming's golden age. Heavy Rain is flawed yet stands as a milestone in the advancement of electronic entertainment's ability to convey auteurship.



Sony Computer Entertainment: The bitch of the industry.
I mean, just look at those terrible sales.
3rd place, last place, never to escape. Losers to the end.
They've got nothing but a heap of boring experiments. Nobody wants to buy that crap.




I suppose that's one way of seeing things.
And it's something I'm fine with, so long as it means I will get what I came for.
Thanks for reading.

Surfaced wrote:

I'm not sure about this, but do all of those covers look the same
That pic explains why 360 rocks in my opinion. All of our games are super cool shooters with space soldiers. I'm not interested in PS3's library, it looks boring.

360 is for people who want to be hardcore.
PS3 is for people who want to play different kind of games.

I don't judge people who goes with PS3 for some reason.. it's their choice lol. Whatever.
It's good to be Xbox-user. Halo reach will be a blast