Because i'd say about 90% of the people who got broken 360's got new ones for free, whereas getting a PS3 would be another $500-600 (depending on time, and for any respectable model) of money that they may or may not have.
First off, you don't know if that's true. Secondly, 360 failure rate is over 30 times that of PS3. So even if that was true, it's still way, way, way more people just rebuying a 360. Lastly, when you're skewed that far, the people with broken PS3s tend to be more personally responsible. If the machine doesn't break on its own, it's more likely that you're the cause by bad handling.
Ok here you go ele.
I hate MS for not making 100% fail proof product before releasing them.
I hate sony for pushing a movie player that they licence and fighting a platform war in the DVD war while they should be winning gamers over.
I hate Nintendo for sticking to the stone ages and if they win the system war, possibly bring us back a gen in gaming.
That is just one reason at the moment. I have tons of others. You are just bitching. Half the stuff you say is just your opinion. If MS products were realy that bad would they be in the position they are? No ass hole. Instead of dealing with it you call any one associated with them "Stupid" when you are the fucking tool. Just enjoy what is available now and shut up please. Stop bitching.
Well as far as Nintendo goes, I don't particulary think that their first party games have ever required a lot of power. If you look at Nintendo, from the days of Sega, they have never been the strongest, or had the best tech. They stayed with the proprietary technology for longest. Hell, the Wii is the first system to use a standard media, DVD.
As for Microsoft, it's not so much the fact they released the bad hardware, but they got rewarded for it. Overall, it didn't hurt their image too bad because for some reason, Playstation 3 has a worse image because it released overpriced than Xbox 360 for being released with a 30%+ fail rate. I believe that's what Elemmire meant about paying people off, not the customers but the media to continue the perception that the Wii is not a real game system you should buy as a secondary toy after your main.. that PC gaming is completely too expensive even though it's not and it should be ignored, and that PS3 has no games and everything released should be bashed.
I don't like the idea that they get profit as a result from releasing early and buggy. This is not having anything to do with this generation at all. I already got a 360 and if they get more exclusives for years, I've got a 360 that isn't actually buggy and it doesn't hurt me. I'm more worried that Sony is going to counter with an early released, untested PS4 to jump ahead of Microsoft next generation because Microsoft seemed to profit from the move this gen. I think products that are untested and bugged should fail. Not win. I think companies should be properly motivated to make their products work.
The fact that hardcore gamers, the small percent of gamers that buy the most software don't seem to care and are happy to buy replacement 360s if the hardware is good, just means they're writing their own death sentence.
Why you ask?
One guy is going to launch first and buggy to grab marketshare. Sony or Microsoft, doesn't matter who. Nintendo is going to stick low tech and casual. The third guy is going to compete with Nintendo for cheap, casual market. The hardcore market is going to stay tiny and die, with only one company pushing high tech and getting the worst sales, combined with it having shit hardware.
Now onto Sony. I'm mostly pissed at them for letting so many of their important exclusives go. They fucking could have had GTA4 a timed exclusive. They could have kept Devil May Cry an exclusive. They should have just paid up and gotten more exclusives. They were too god damn arrogant that they would sell on the Playstation name. As a result to stay competitive, which they are, they slashed prices of the console. Yet again, they get rewarded for this. As a result they're close to 10 mill which considering their position a year ago, is fucking amazing. People were declaring Sony was going to drop the PS3, blah blah. The problem is that as an early adopters who paid $600, I'd rather have seen them pull themselves up by announcing an ungodly amount of games. I'd have liked to see them declare they just bought several studios. I was expecting a studio buying rampage.
Now the high price in the first place, I'm personally not mad about the Blu-ray drive. The only thing is I wish they waited longer and they had a blu-ray drive that could spin faster. More capacity is great, and it allows for games like Uncharted, but I'd like them to be able to pull data off the disc faster so the benefits would be more pronounced. Instead every fucking game has a harddrive install so they can leverage the hard drive. The 360 doesn't need the harddrive so much because the drive spins so fast. This is also why the 360 is freaking loud as hell.
As for the blu-ray inclusion at all? It's more about high def to me than the format. Wii fucks you if you like high def, by being standard def. PS3 fucks you with a player you can't use yet. 360 is about right for everyone. Having a high def TV, I love the blu-ray. That's just me though, and I have the TV. The important thing is that Sony took the hit not me. They didn't charge $800 for a PS3. So I bought the PS3 and they paid for the blu-ray drive. I just wish they had a blu-ray drive that would be a little better suited to games. On the other hand I'm pissed at Microsoft for the DVD drive, because I'm sure if both systems used Blu-ray then the effects would be more pronounced. I expect Sony first party to get better and better, hence... the images in my OP, because they don't have to deal with a 360 port. PS3 exclusives will pull ahead thanks to blu-ray, they just won't get better sales.
come on, it's obvious they have "borrowed" (lolstolen) ideas from Nintendo and others before.
