"The Three Golden Rules Of Bullshit"

Sir.Zillah wrote:

- games shouldn't be based off of A,AA,AAA scores . -_-
imo, this video had very few flaws .

Than what can it be based on? Scores are the only thing that's close to legitimate debating.

Sir.Zillah wrote:

- games shouldn't be based off of A,AA,AAA scores . -_-
imo, this video had very few flaws .

Because it's smart to say that this game is better than this game because I say so. Like 7th did?

7th is one of the only cool ps3 fanboys

The PS3 will not have the 10 year lifetime the PS2 had. That's just ridicules, the PS3 is nowhere near where the PS2 was at at this time in it's life. Besides, when the the next gen starts it's over for this gen. Who ever is last place when the next gen starts will always be in last place in history. PS3 fantards thinking that the PS3 will somehow be a viable platform after the next gen starts proves they live in a fantasy world.

Nothing on the PS3 destroys Gears of War or Mass Effect and if you'll notice he didn't mention Halo becuase NOTHING can touch Halo, PS3 or other. Again, PS3 fantards live in a fantasy world.

It's not about writing a bible to counter PS3 fantards. It's about trying to make our points simple enough so PS3 fantard's tiny monkey brains can understand the Xbox 360 kicks ass and the PS3 is the bitch. Unfortunately 7thlevl proves once again that PS3 fantards live in a fantasy world and they don't want to listen to reason.

bat man? what?

7th, youre becoming senial.

BlackStigma wrote:

1 year lead lol
360 sold under 6 million units in the first year, 360 leads by 5.5 million, so even subtracting those from the total sales number would make the 360 and PS3 even in sales. fail point.

Thats not a fail point at all, because what it proves is that if they both launched simultaneously, even with a higher price point, less online functionality, and an (at the time) less impressive game lineup, the 360 wouldn't be able to dominate the PS3. What it proves is the year headstart is ALL IT HAS. And your above comment is an admission of it.

Quote :

10 year life span!
Microsoft has confirmed the 360 will have a 10 year life span. And the 360 will reach $100 much sooner before the PS3.

Everything else was basically irrelevant because he had no facts to back himself up. I love how he bring the PC into this.

Ah but see, as with Sony, that doesn't mean they'll wait till 2015 to launch a new console, it means they'll continue to sell it after the new Xbox launches. So by touting the fact that they too supposedly intend to push production out to ten years, which will only be possible if the rumored 360 Slim is a reality, you're negating MLD's point about when the generation begins and ends. Nevermind the fact that for a good while after the 360 launched, the PS2 was outselling it in console sales. So one could just as easily state that the generation ends when the last system of that generation stops being produced, not when the next generation launches. And that's the biggest flaw in MLD's counter I think. Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, they don't determine when a Generation ends. The consumers do, and the PS2 is STILL selling, and STILL releasing new games ten years into its launch cycle. This is nothing new. Up until the game crash of 1983/1984, the 2600 was still the top selling console despite the Colecovision, 5200, and Intellivision trumping it in console power and game quality. It stayed around because the consumers kept buying it. The 360, even if it stays out ten years, will still cease production a year before the PS3 will, and people will continue to buy the PS3 for that final year, hence it will surpass the 360 if it hasn't already by that point. And as for blu-ray, no one has been able to argue that people just buy the PS3 for the blu-ray player since 2008 when stand alone blu ray players dropped to 200 dollars, and can now be had for 150 or less depending on brand and features.

Quote :

Final Fantasy VII, and Final Fantasy VIII were both on the PC. Does anyone really care? No, people will call it a PS1 exclusive despite that fact. Same with Gears 1 and Metro 2033 and some others. In ten years no one will give a fuck if they were on PC, they'll still consider it as 360 exclusives. Just by looking at history you can basically own any attacking PS3 fanboy.

Watch the last video I made. I acknowledge that games like Gears, Mass Effect, are 360 exclusives even though they were ported to PC, because they were designed for 360 in mind. I'm talking about games like Battle For Middle Earth 2, Divinity 2, Supremem Commander 2, games that were designed for PC and ported over to 360. I don't consider them the same thing.

BlackStigma wrote:

Alan1994 wrote:

What does Blu-ray have to do with online services?

Nothing, he's trying to use it to cancel out online features by listing features on the PS3 itself not on 360.

but what I say to this...1080p steaming

1080p streaming on the 360 has a lower bit rate. Set it side by side with a the same movie playing on a blu ray player and you can easily see the difference. And having the physical media on your shelf as opposed to taking up hard drive space on your unit will always be the better choice, until they can get internet bandwidth to the point where it can be streamed at full high definition with the same bit rate. Of course by then, you'll be able to do so with games too, which will render multiple consoles irrelevant because we'll be streaming ALL our content via one device ala Onlive. Cloud computing is going to change everything. Eventually microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo are going to go the way of Sega. Physical media is slowly but surely on its way out. Won't happen for a couple more generations I think, but its coming.

343_Guilty_Spark wrote:

The PS3 will not have the 10 year lifetime the PS2 had. That's just ridicules, the PS3 is nowhere near where the PS2 was at at this time in it's life. Besides, when the the next gen starts it's over for this gen. Who ever is last place when the next gen starts will always be in last place in history. PS3 fantards thinking that the PS3 will somehow be a viable platform after the next gen starts proves they live in a fantasy world.

As your esteemed associate pointed out above, were it not for the year head start the two systems would currently be tied, so if the PS3 wouldn't be viable for a ten year lifespan based on console sales then neither would the 360. The 360 is nowhere near the PS2's success either, so it goes both ways. Will the 360 last ten years in production? If a 360 Slim comes out its a definite possibility. But the PS3 will most assuredly be in production for the full ten year run. Hell, the PS2 is still selling so well it could easily go another 2 years.

Quote :

Nothing on the PS3 destroys Gears of War or Mass Effect and if you'll notice he didn't mention Halo becuase NOTHING can touch Halo, PS3 or other. Again, PS3 fantards live in a fantasy world.

The only thing any of those games have over the best PS3 titles are sales numbers. Again, as pointed out in the last vid I did, ME2 has been out since January and has only sold 1.71 million despite its 9.5 score and being a vast improvement over the original, while God or War 3 has been out a third of the time and has sold 2.18 million. (And incidentally, both Uncharted and Uncharted 2 have sold better than either of the Mass Effect games by a million copies. Killzone 2 has outsold ME1 as well. The truth is that Halo 3, Gears and Gears 2 are the only exclusives that trump PS3 exclusive sales.) The truth of the matter is that exclusive sales for 360 titles peaked with Halo 3 three years ago, and I have my doubts that either Gears 3 or Reach will trump it. No Gears title to date has outsold Halo 3, and Reach is yet another side story prequel with no Master Chief, barely improved visuals, and online functionality ripped off from Unreal Tournament and Tribes. It'll sell, but it won't do Halo 3 numbers.

Halo 3 for the most part was the exception, not the rule. It was an admitted phenomenon that I don't believe will be topped by any exclusive for any system this gen. There was pent up demand to see the conclusion to the story line, there hadn't been a new Halo game in 3 years, and there was nothing else exclusive coming out at that time on the 360 that was really worth a damn, so it sold a shit load. And even now Halo 3 is the third most played online game despite CODMW and MW2.

And yeah, I know Halo 3's sales were trumped by Wii Sports, but like MLD, I don't really count Wii as a part of this gen, but off in its own little world.

Are you just here to debate 7th?

7th wrote:

343_Guilty_Spark wrote:

The PS3 will not have the 10 year lifetime the PS2 had. That's just ridicules, the PS3 is nowhere near where the PS2 was at at this time in it's life. Besides, when the the next gen starts it's over for this gen. Who ever is last place when the next gen starts will always be in last place in history. PS3 fantards thinking that the PS3 will somehow be a viable platform after the next gen starts proves they live in a fantasy world.

As your esteemed associate pointed out above, were it not for the year head start the two systems would currently be tied, so if the PS3 wouldn't be viable for a ten year lifespan based on console sales then neither would the 360. The 360 is nowhere near the PS2's success either, so it goes both ways. Will the 360 last ten years in production? If a 360 Slim comes out its a definite possibility. But the PS3 will most assuredly be in production for the full ten year run. Hell, the PS2 is still selling so well it could easily go another 2 years.

I love how you only responded to one of my points and you failed to even really do that. All you did was claim the 360 won't last 10 years and then use the PS2 as evidence the PS3 will. The PS3 is not this generation's PS2, the Wii is. The PS3 and Xbox 360 may last ten years in productions, but that's not how long the generation is going to last. The PS3 is not as strong as the PS2 was at this time and your kidding yourself that it ever will be. The Xbox and Wii has taken too much of the market for Sony to recapture it's former glory.

7th wrote:

BlackStigma wrote:

1 year lead lol
360 sold under 6 million units in the first year, 360 leads by 5.5 million, so even subtracting those from the total sales number would make the 360 and PS3 even in sales. fail point.

Thats not a fail point at all, because what it proves is that if they both launched simultaneously, even with a higher price point, less online functionality, and an (at the time) less impressive game lineup, the 360 wouldn't be able to dominate the PS3. What it proves is the year headstart is ALL IT HAS. And your above comment is an admission of it.

Quote :

10 year life span!
Microsoft has confirmed the 360 will have a 10 year life span. And the 360 will reach $100 much sooner before the PS3.

Everything else was basically irrelevant because he had no facts to back himself up. I love how he bring the PC into this.

Ah but see, as with Sony, that doesn't mean they'll wait till 2015 to launch a new console, it means they'll continue to sell it after the new Xbox launches. So by touting the fact that they too supposedly intend to push production out to ten years, which will only be possible if the rumored 360 Slim is a reality, you're negating MLD's point about when the generation begins and ends. Nevermind the fact that for a good while after the 360 launched, the PS2 was outselling it in console sales. So one could just as easily state that the generation ends when the last system of that generation stops being produced, not when the next generation launches. And that's the biggest flaw in MLD's counter I think. Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, they don't determine when a Generation ends. The consumers do, and the PS2 is STILL selling, and STILL releasing new games ten years into its launch cycle. This is nothing new. Up until the game crash of 1983/1984, the 2600 was still the top selling console despite the Colecovision, 5200, and Intellivision trumping it in console power and game quality. It stayed around because the consumers kept buying it. The 360, even if it stays out ten years, will still cease production a year before the PS3 will, and people will continue to buy the PS3 for that final year, hence it will surpass the 360 if it hasn't already by that point. And as for blu-ray, no one has been able to argue that people just buy the PS3 for the blu-ray player since 2008 when stand alone blu ray players dropped to 200 dollars, and can now be had for 150 or less depending on brand and features.

1. PS3 only sold like it did because it was riding the PS2's popularity, if it wasn't for "Playstation" it would've sold like utter shit. I mean look at the exclusives released around launch, Resistance, Uncharted, R&C TOD, mediocre Heavenly Sword and Motorstorm, Warhawk and Ninja Gaiden Sigma. These were like the best games for it in 2006/2007, pathetic lineup. And then again this is all irrelevant because we're going by total sales. It's Sony's problem if they released the PS3 later.

2. You should read over what you said carefully. The only reason the PS2 is on the market is because Sony can still make a profit on it. With the Xbox Microsoft could make no profit, even with XBL fees they still went under. Thus Microsoft discontinued it's production at the end of '06. Although it still had a few games made until the end of '08. Now if Microsoft could make a profit out of it wouldn't it make sense to continue producing it? I mean why stop? I believe they will continue to produce it until it is no longer profitable. And Sony will do the same. Once the PS3 is unprofitable it will be discontinued. However game developers could still make multiplats for them because even though they have been discontinued there are still those who would buy games for it. Hell Radirgy for the Dreamcast was released in 2006!

And like I said, the 360 could easily reach a $100 price tag before the PS3, especially with the arcade. There are already rumors of a price drop anyways.

HellJumper wrote:

Are you just here to debate 7th?

Nah, just hangin out.

343_Guilty_Spark wrote:

7th wrote:

343_Guilty_Spark wrote:

The PS3 will not have the 10 year lifetime the PS2 had. That's just ridicules, the PS3 is nowhere near where the PS2 was at at this time in it's life. Besides, when the the next gen starts it's over for this gen. Who ever is last place when the next gen starts will always be in last place in history. PS3 fantards thinking that the PS3 will somehow be a viable platform after the next gen starts proves they live in a fantasy world.

As your esteemed associate pointed out above, were it not for the year head start the two systems would currently be tied, so if the PS3 wouldn't be viable for a ten year lifespan based on console sales then neither would the 360. The 360 is nowhere near the PS2's success either, so it goes both ways. Will the 360 last ten years in production? If a 360 Slim comes out its a definite possibility. But the PS3 will most assuredly be in production for the full ten year run. Hell, the PS2 is still selling so well it could easily go another 2 years.

I love how you only responded to one of my points and you failed to even really do that. All you did was claim the 360 won't last 10 years and then use the PS2 as evidence the PS3 will. The PS3 is not this generation's PS2, the Wii is. The PS3 and Xbox 360 may last ten years in productions, but that's not how long the generation is going to last. The PS3 is not as strong as the PS2 was at this time and your kidding yourself that it ever will be. The Xbox and Wii has taken too much of the market for Sony to recapture it's former glory.

I said the 360 very well COULD go ten years if they bring out better hardware, IE a 360 SLim with a better reliability rate. If they stick with the Jasper Elite, you're gonna see more and more failure and ppl buying PS3s as their second console, especially as the 3 year warranty runs out. The numbers on this are already starting to pop up here and there, insofar as 360 owners either buying PS3s a s a second console or outright placing their 360 with it (the former more than the latter.)

PLus you have issues like MW2. The game is so hacked to pieces on the 360 that all the big tourneys, where the pros play, are switching over to PS3, so you have at least a couple thousand players per tourney who are going out and buying PS3s just so they can continue to compete. Is that gonna make a huge dent in sales? No, but it is noticed.

BlackStigma wrote:

1. PS3 only sold like it did because it was riding the PS2's popularity, if it wasn't for "Playstation" it would've sold like utter shit.

Kind of a fail argument. You might as well say people only bought the SNES because of the NES, or people only bought the PS2 because of the PS1, or people only bought the Genesis because of the Master System (lol.) I mean what exactly would be your great point in that? Do you really think that the majority of the people who bought the 360 at launch were first time console buyers? No, a good deal of them were either Xbox owners or people who wanted the next big thing and didn't want to wait on the PS3 for another year. And now a good number of those are buying PS3s as their second console.

Quote :

I mean look at the exclusives released around launch, Resistance, Uncharted, R&C TOD, mediocre Heavenly Sword and Motorstorm, Warhawk and Ninja Gaiden Sigma. These were like the best games for it in 2006/2007, pathetic lineup. And then again this is all irrelevant because we're going by total sales. It's Sony's problem if they released the PS3 later.

All of the games you mentioned short of Motorstorm and Heavenly Sword were top tier titles (R&C might have been a high AA, can't remember.) The truth of the matter is that the 360 didn't have a whole lot of fantastic exclusives its first year either, not until Gears came out in 06 and Halo 3 hit in 07. It had some good 3rd party selections, as did the Trey its first year, but the 360 was heavily padded with pc/ps2/wii ports of outdated titles and kiddie games like Meet the Robinsons.

Quote :

2. You should read over what you said carefully. The only reason the PS2 is on the market is because Sony can still make a profit on it. With the Xbox Microsoft could make no profit, even with XBL fees they still went under. Thus Microsoft discontinued it's production at the end of '06. Although it still had a few games made until the end of '08. Now if Microsoft could make a profit out of it wouldn't it make sense to continue producing it? I mean why stop? I believe they will continue to produce it until it is no longer profitable. And Sony will do the same. Once the PS3 is unprofitable it will be discontinued. However game developers could still make multiplats for them because even though they have been discontinued there are still those who would buy games for it. Hell Radirgy for the Dreamcast was released in 2006!

Again you miss the point. MLD was trying to argue the PS3 wouldn't last 10 years because it wasn't selling as well as PS2. Hell, neither did the PS1, but it lasted 10 years on the market. The PS2, like Halo 3, was and is an anomaly, a system that sold as well as it did due to very specific circumstances in the marketplace, namely the public's love of the DVD format. PS3 doesn't have that because so many people still haven't adopted HIDef TV (which the Japanese have had for over a decade now in one form or another) so Blu Ray hasn't been as big of a selling factor, though its title sales are steadily climbing as HDTVs increase their market share. PS2 is a system I doubt will be surpassed for a good while. Nor do I think the Wii will topple its overall sales benchmark, because the Wii has had a 22% drop in sales over the past fiscal year. Its popularity is declining, while the 360 and PS3 continue to climb, with the PS3 climbing at a faster rate despite the fact that the Slim was released 9 months ago.

Quote :

And like I said, the 360 could easily reach a $100 price tag before the PS3, especially with the arcade. There are already rumors of a price drop anyways.

That wouldn't be that great of a deal really, considering all the extra shit you'd have to buy to make it function at the same level as an Elite. Just the 120 gig hard drive alone would push it up to 200+. Sure, dumbass uninformed parents would buy it. I was at Walmart the other day and a couple were looking at an arcade for their teenaged son so he could play MW2 and Dragon's Age. I chuckled, and mentioned it didn't come with a hard drive, so they'd in the least have to buy memory cards for it, and forget about buying games online or DLC expansion packs. They had no idea there was a model that didnt include it, nor did they know you could buy additional content for games in addition to what came on the disk. I would be curious to find out how many Arcades have been sold to similar couples since 2005, which of course isn't Microsoft's fault, perse, but still, why even have an arcade when more and more the games coming out focus more on the online and DLC?

Simple: to create the illusion of a cheaper console.

7th wrote:

343_Guilty_Spark wrote:

7th wrote:

343_Guilty_Spark wrote:

The PS3 will not have the 10 year lifetime the PS2 had. That's just ridicules, the PS3 is nowhere near where the PS2 was at at this time in it's life. Besides, when the the next gen starts it's over for this gen. Who ever is last place when the next gen starts will always be in last place in history. PS3 fantards thinking that the PS3 will somehow be a viable platform after the next gen starts proves they live in a fantasy world.

As your esteemed associate pointed out above, were it not for the year head start the two systems would currently be tied, so if the PS3 wouldn't be viable for a ten year lifespan based on console sales then neither would the 360. The 360 is nowhere near the PS2's success either, so it goes both ways. Will the 360 last ten years in production? If a 360 Slim comes out its a definite possibility. But the PS3 will most assuredly be in production for the full ten year run. Hell, the PS2 is still selling so well it could easily go another 2 years.

I love how you only responded to one of my points and you failed to even really do that. All you did was claim the 360 won't last 10 years and then use the PS2 as evidence the PS3 will. The PS3 is not this generation's PS2, the Wii is. The PS3 and Xbox 360 may last ten years in productions, but that's not how long the generation is going to last. The PS3 is not as strong as the PS2 was at this time and your kidding yourself that it ever will be. The Xbox and Wii has taken too much of the market for Sony to recapture it's former glory.

I said the 360 very well COULD go ten years if they bring out better hardware, IE a 360 SLim with a better reliability rate. If they stick with the Jasper Elite, you're gonna see more and more failure and ppl buying PS3s as their second console, especially as the 3 year warranty runs out. The numbers on this are already starting to pop up here and there, insofar as 360 owners either buying PS3s a s a second console or outright placing their 360 with it (the former more than the latter.)

PLus you have issues like MW2. The game is so hacked to pieces on the 360 that all the big tourneys, where the pros play, are switching over to PS3, so you have at least a couple thousand players per tourney who are going out and buying PS3s just so they can continue to compete. Is that gonna make a huge dent in sales? No, but it is noticed.

You still haven't justified your claims about the PS3, you just keep going off on tangents.

BlackStigma wrote:

7th wrote:

BlackStigma wrote:

1 year lead lol
360 sold under 6 million units in the first year, 360 leads by 5.5 million, so even subtracting those from the total sales number would make the 360 and PS3 even in sales. fail point.

Thats not a fail point at all, because what it proves is that if they both launched simultaneously, even with a higher price point, less online functionality, and an (at the time) less impressive game lineup, the 360 wouldn't be able to dominate the PS3. What it proves is the year headstart is ALL IT HAS. And your above comment is an admission of it.

Quote :

10 year life span!
Microsoft has confirmed the 360 will have a 10 year life span. And the 360 will reach $100 much sooner before the PS3.

Everything else was basically irrelevant because he had no facts to back himself up. I love how he bring the PC into this.

Ah but see, as with Sony, that doesn't mean they'll wait till 2015 to launch a new console, it means they'll continue to sell it after the new Xbox launches. So by touting the fact that they too supposedly intend to push production out to ten years, which will only be possible if the rumored 360 Slim is a reality, you're negating MLD's point about when the generation begins and ends. Nevermind the fact that for a good while after the 360 launched, the PS2 was outselling it in console sales. So one could just as easily state that the generation ends when the last system of that generation stops being produced, not when the next generation launches. And that's the biggest flaw in MLD's counter I think. Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, they don't determine when a Generation ends. The consumers do, and the PS2 is STILL selling, and STILL releasing new games ten years into its launch cycle. This is nothing new. Up until the game crash of 1983/1984, the 2600 was still the top selling console despite the Colecovision, 5200, and Intellivision trumping it in console power and game quality. It stayed around because the consumers kept buying it. The 360, even if it stays out ten years, will still cease production a year before the PS3 will, and people will continue to buy the PS3 for that final year, hence it will surpass the 360 if it hasn't already by that point. And as for blu-ray, no one has been able to argue that people just buy the PS3 for the blu-ray player since 2008 when stand alone blu ray players dropped to 200 dollars, and can now be had for 150 or less depending on brand and features.

1. PS3 only sold like it did because it was riding the PS2's popularity, if it wasn't for "Playstation" it would've sold like utter shit. I mean look at the exclusives released around launch, Resistance, Uncharted, R&C TOD, mediocre Heavenly Sword and Motorstorm, Warhawk and Ninja Gaiden Sigma. These were like the best games for it in 2006/2007, pathetic lineup. And then again this is all irrelevant because we're going by total sales. It's Sony's problem if they released the PS3 later.

2. You should read over what you said carefully. The only reason the PS2 is on the market is because Sony can still make a profit on it. With the Xbox Microsoft could make no profit, even with XBL fees they still went under. Thus Microsoft discontinued it's production at the end of '06. Although it still had a few games made until the end of '08. Now if Microsoft could make a profit out of it wouldn't it make sense to continue producing it? I mean why stop? I believe they will continue to produce it until it is no longer profitable. And Sony will do the same. Once the PS3 is unprofitable it will be discontinued. However game developers could still make multiplats for them because even though they have been discontinued there are still those who would buy games for it. Hell Radirgy for the Dreamcast was released in 2006!

And like I said, the 360 could easily reach a $100 price tag before the PS3, especially with the arcade. There are already rumors of a price drop anyways.

Ok i dont wanna start a debate but i noticed something, you said that "Once the PS3 is unprofitable it will be discontinued" umm the ps3 has been unprofitable since launch, it barely began to make profit when the slim came out.

@7th because quoting a multi-quote gets confusing

1. The SNES didn't cost $600 dollars at launch. It cost $300 lol, so of course it got many first time buying. I sincerely doubt the PS3 got many first time buyers. The 360 cost $400 at launch, it got first time buyers because it was somewhat affordable. Playstation 2 cost $350 at launch. Genesis? $300 lol.
http://gizmodo.com/images/2006/05/relative.gif
Yep, PS3 sold mainly because of Playstation fans.
Prices adjusted for inflation btw.

2. Perfect Dark Zero, Condemned: Criminal Origins, Elder Scrolls IV (exclusive at time), Dead Rising, Dead or Alive 4, Quake IV, Project Gotham Racing 3, Gears of War, Prey,
Okay - Kameo, Ridge Racer 6, Farcry Instincts Predator, a few others, etc.
Ha, even with upscaled PS2 games the 360 2005/2006 exclusive lineup still massacred the PS3 2006/2007 lineup.

3. Okay but that's MLD's point, my point is that the 360 will be on the market longer than the PS3 and will reach a cheaper price much faster and thus keeping a lead on PS3 sales. And there are rumors of a 360 slim, and with Natal it will gain a massive sales boost, and the PS3's momentum is already slowing down. The PS3 barely takes the lead over the 360 in world wide sales month by month.

@igame
Sony wants to keep the PS3 on the market really bad so they take financial losses, once the 10 years are up it will probably be discontinued, but the 360 could go on a lot longer than 10 years.

So much! I just could'nt read it all. lol. Im subbed to both 7th and MLD and I think they both make great points. Just another reason to own both consoles. Even though my preference is the 360.

xSTONEYx187x wrote:

So much! I just could'nt read it all. lol. Im subbed to both 7th and MLD and I think they both make great points. Just another reason to own both consoles. Even though my preference is the 360.

I'll shorten it up for you. I'm winning

From what I've seen from your posts Black, I know you can dish it out!

7th made a vid
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jT3oe5mMdAo

every time he made a new point he called the video by some hilarious name lol

joe11 wrote:

7th made a vid
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jT3oe5mMdAo

I only watched about 1 minute of that video. I couldn't stop laughing when he brought up the Dreamcast. As if anyone seriously considers the Dreamcast a viable platform. 7th needs to start taking so reality pills becuase he's living in a fantasy world where the PS3 isn't in last place and will somehow gain the sales of the PS2 launching it into a ten year lifespan. LOL, so sad. The PS3 may be sold for ten years, maybe even 15, but if he thinks that Sony isn't going to switch gears the moment the next gen starts he's kidding himself. Look at the PS2, probably the most popular video game system of all time, but after the PS3 came out Sony stopped giving a crap about it. Game released dwindled and it quickly became a shadow of itself. Unfortunately for the PS3 it's not even half as popular as the PS2 so it's not even going to make it as far as the PS2 did. The fact is, the PS3 doesn't have enough time to make up the sales difference between it and the Xbox 360 before MS drops the next Xbox and with Natal and a newly redesigned Xbox planed for this fall it's the Xbox 360 that's going to have a boost in sales later in the game than the PS3. Lol, the only thing the PS3 has in common with the Dreamcast is that their new competitor has beaten them at their own game. The Xbox brand will be strong throughout this gen and will be stronger than the Playstation brand when the next gen starts. Sony fans better get used to being in last place and watching their cherished 3rd party exclusives jump ship becuase that's what's going to continue next gen and beyond. Sony will never have another PS2 success story, ever.

343_Guilty_Spark wrote:

joe11 wrote:

7th made a vid
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jT3oe5mMdAo

I only watched about 1 minute of that video. I couldn't stop laughing when he brought up the Dreamcast. As if anyone seriously considers the Dreamcast a viable platform. 7th needs to start taking so reality pills becuase he's living in a fantasy world where the PS3 isn't in last place and will somehow gain the sales of the PS2 launching it into a ten year lifespan. LOL, so sad. The PS3 may be sold for ten years, maybe even 15, but if he thinks that Sony isn't going to switch gears the moment the next gen starts he's kidding himself. Look at the PS2, probably the most popular video game system of all time, but after the PS3 came out Sony stopped giving a crap about it. Game released dwindled and it quickly became a shadow of itself. Unfortunately for the PS3 it's not even half as popular as the PS2 so it's not even going to make it as far as the PS2 did. The fact is, the PS3 doesn't have enough time to make up the sales difference between it and the Xbox 360 before MS drops the next Xbox and with Natal and a newly redesigned Xbox planed for this fall it's the Xbox 360 that's going to have a boost in sales later in the game than the PS3. Lol, the only thing the PS3 has in common with the Dreamcast is that their new competitor has beaten them at their own game. The Xbox brand will be strong throughout this gen and will be stronger than the Playstation brand when the next gen starts. Sony fans better get used to being in last place and watching their cherished 3rd party exclusives jump ship becuase that's what's going to continue next gen and beyond. Sony will never have another PS2 success story, ever.

You should really watch the rest of the video before you start BSing it. In fact i think you already have but just dont want to counter his other points. Lets not get Fanboyism to corrupt our logic.