PS3 surpasses Xbox 360 Worldwide!

The days has come PS fanboys!
Report: PS3 Surpasses Xbox 360

Quote:

---

The Xbox 360 has been ahead of PlayStation 3 in the global sales race since the first day the PS3 was released in 2006. But according to a new forecast report summarized by Games Industry International, the PlayStation 3 has officially taken the lead in units shipped.


Tucked within, according to Games Industry International, are console numbers for PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 as of December, 2012. “Sony’s PS3 managed to surpass the number of Xbox 360s shipped worldwide (about 77 million vs. 76 million), despite the PS3 launching a year later.”

---

Just think if they kept backwards compatability and didn't cause all sorts of hell and hoops to jump through for publishers to provide DLC and other content those figures would probably have been a lot higher. This generation of consoles is what caused me to ultimately come out of it as a PC gamer. Barring a stellar line up of launch titles and a PSN re-envisioned from the ground-up Sony won't be getting a day one purchase from me in the next generation.

Cheers for victory!

Seriously, though, this would have been good news if it had come out in 2007. You couldn't go to a forum, a website, or a game store without hearing EVERYBODY talk about how the PS3 is a failure and Sony is doomed because they're in third place and they failed. It was a dark time when gamers weren't talking about features, functionality, or exclusives, instead they were discussing financial figures and business strategies. Fortunately this died down eventually, but who cares anymore? The 360 is a great console and I think everyone should be glad that there's another legitimate option out there for dedicated gamers.

Personally, I'm in the same boat as Aulayna. The industry just wasn't able to keep producing the kinds of games I play on console, namely JRPGs. I'm more of a handheld gamer than I've ever been and after getting a new laptop last summer, I game almost exclusively on Steam. Now is a better time than ever to get into PC gaming; Decent machines are cheaper than a PS3 and they're practically giving away AAA games for free. I'm probably going to hold off getting into the next gen for a while, and at this point I can't say how long.

Suck it 360 owners! The system I own has sold slightly more copies than the system you own. By owning a system that a greater number of other people also own, I am superior to you in some way!

Don't forget the e-peen.

Oh man now I get to do what Bolivar has done the last few years and deny it, break down into a ball and start crying. IT'S NOT TRUE OH GOD NO THE 360 IS STILL THE BEST!!! :D

Fair enough, really. You have to give credit to Microsoft for staving off the inevitable for six years. Still is kind of shocking that the PS2 juggernaut was followed up with such a huge loss of market share. Roll on the next generation though. I have no brand loyalty to either and will just get whatever my friends have.

Awkward that it's right at the end of the console generation, though! That's like becoming the fastest 100M sprinter shortly after they cut the event from the Olympics. ;)

As Psy said, the real shocker is that this wasn't the news as soon as the PS3 came out, due to the shoddy choices made by Sony.

I come in a thread saying:

Quote:

---

The 360 is a great console and I think everyone should be glad that there's another legitimate option out there for dedicated gamers.

---

Only to get hit with:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psychotic

Oh man now I get to do what Bolivar has done the last few years and deny it, break down into a ball and start crying. IT'S NOT TRUE OH GOD NO THE 360 IS STILL THE BEST!!! :D

---

I hope you realize how unintentionally ironic your post is.

Oh, sorry, I stopped reading your posts in 2008. :shobon:

Everyone must be buying the PS3 to make sure they can play FF14 when it comes out!

Oh okay, that's pretty cool. I've never bothered getting myself involved in this fanboy business and just purely focused on enjoying the gaming, no matter which console it's on.

I'm honestly surprised they managed to claw this back, I thought MS had too much of a lead. I'd say congrats but as has been pointed out this shouldn't have been a problem after the PS1 and 2.

Quote:

---

just get whatever my friends have.

---

Chlamydia?

smurf no. Gonorrhea has better exclusives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psychotic

Oh, sorry, I stopped reading your posts in 2008. :shobon:

---

Why, because I said a few times that the PS3 has more features and exclusives? I don't remember that ever being controversial, and I certainly wasn't the only one on this forum saying those things. I still thought it was a good console, and my posts haven't changed.

And neither have yours. You're still singling me out and getting defensive before anyone actually says anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bolivar

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psychotic

Oh, sorry, I stopped reading your posts in 2008. :shobon:

---

Why, because I said a few times that the PS3 has more features and exclusives? I don't remember that ever being controversial, and I certainly wasn't the only one on this forum saying those things. I still thought it was a good console, and my posts haven't changed.

And neither have yours. You're still singling me out and getting defensive before anyone actually says anything.

---

Sometimes you just need to accept that you're being trolled Bolivar. Actually, odds are if Psy posts at all he is trolling anyone and everyone simultaneously.

Hey don't give the game away, I could've got another week from him! ;)

Not surprised it took this long, what with all the 360 owners having to buy brand new 360's after their first ones crapped out on them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vivi22

Sometimes you just need to accept that you're being trolled Bolivar. Actually, odds are if Psy posts at all he is trolling anyone and everyone simultaneously.

---

Really? You don't think I've done a good job accepting how you haven't been able to post without quoting or harassing me for months now, even when you admit that you have nothing else to say? If you'd rather I'd expose you guys in private, I'll just use the report button from now on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neo

Not surprised it took this long, what with all the 360 owners having to buy brand new 360's after their first ones crapped out on them.

---

Overall it's been this insane case study in brand loyalty. They were able to make crazy inroads with the year head start, the lower price point, the studio acquisitions and investments, the marketing blowouts, the Kinect hype, and better network features, but more importantly, were able to get people to keep buying that console even when the Red Ring stuff came to light.

By showing that their trolling offends you, you're just giving them an incentive to continue. :p

Brand loyalty seems less likely than "exceptionally cheaper" as the main reason, not to mention the very un-Microsoft-ily good customer service when the uncommon RROD reared its ugly head. Cost of first batch 360: £150. Cost of repair: £0 + two weeks of time. Cost of PS3: £300. Most people were just smart with their money, as opposed to unusually loyal. Then Microsoft actually kept the cost down to roughly the same level, even after they stopped releasing early models, while Sony adamantly refused to budge for damn near the whole lifetime of the console. Microsoft simply made the more attractive console for people who only had enough money for one, which, apparently, was most people.

Saying it's "brand loyalty" is a bit of a shallow analysis. Quin's already pointed out that even with RROD taken into account, for a very long time a 360 was a hell of a lot cheaper than a PS3. Beyond that though, Microsoft knew they weren't going to win big with the original Xbox in terms of sales and they always intended to use it to build up a solid core of customers and franchises to attract people for their second console. The original Xbox was a surprisingly great console with a terrific lineup and games like Halo put the thing on the map; a decade later that particular franchise is a household name comparable to Mario and Pokemon.

When the Seventh gen came along, Sony lost the plot. They put out a tremendously expensive console that was missing perhaps the most important possible feature, backwards compatibility, in all but one SKU. Their lineup wasn't tremendously impressive but more to the point Microsoft did a damned good job of showing and telling people about their features, whilst Sony pretty much assumed they could coast along. If it had had a sane price point they almost certainly could have but the absurd cost of the PS3 meant people turned elsewhere. Their list of exclusives was frankly underwhelming and those which did exist were subject to tremendous delays. Gran Turismo 5 is probably the best example there.

It seems to me that the crazier brand loyalty is to the system which took forever to arrive, was extortionately expensive, lacked videogames, and was pretty underwhelming in most regards. If people stuck with the 360 despite the RRoD debacle there might be a reason for that beyond people who think Microsoft are really great and Bill Gates looks like such a nice man in his nerd sweaters.

Oh man, GT 5. smurfing hell. I was working in GameStation at the time of its release, and I had to call the massive list of people who had made pre-orders years and sodding years telling them their game had arrived. About half the people didn't bother with it, because they'd got on with their lives and didn't really have time for or interest in gaming anymore. That was a right shambles. xD

While I admit my previous comment was just in hopes of triggering an Iceglow rant, because they amuse me, I do think there was a fair amount of brand loyalty involved. (Something both camps are pretty damned Guilty of. :p)

There was this bizzare notion that some 360 fans were pushing that the PS3 had just as high of a failure rate, which was completely bulltrout, and that the 360 was just as powerful and capable of just as much output as a PS3, also completely bulltrout.

Though yeah, for the most part it was the price, and better online. (Mind you, there was a lot of exaggeration about PS3 being horrid online as well. Having played a fair amount online, I can say that most games worked just fine. :p)

There is some definate exaggeration that happens in regards to just how much of that is just being 'brand loyal', as there were plenty of reasons one could realisticly conjure up to own a 360 instead.

Well, realistically, the 360 was chucking out as much power as the PS3, since very few developers actually used the PS3's full capacity. It's only in PS3 exclusives where you really see the difference, and those were far too few are far too small a deal to really matter.

The idea of someone being brand loyal to Microsoft genuinely boggles me. Everybody who uses a Microsoft product thinks and knows that they are wankers. In the PC market, Linux is too much of a mystery to your general purpose thicky who just wants a computer to do stuff, and Apple are... well, Apple. Microsoft provide a relatively easy and functional service for most people, not to mention it's what most computers come with out the box, which is probably why most people stick with Windows. It's not a question of brand loyalty.

That transfers into the console market. The PS2 was arguably the best console ever made, and the Xbox just couldn't hold a candle to it. Firstly, Microsoft didn't have the quantity of games that Sony had access to, and secondly, the Xbox was quite trout compared to the PS2. One could reasonably argue that Halo is the prime reason the Xbox was as popular as it was. It's unlikely that many people would be brand loyal to that ugly little box with its many drawbacks. I bet my bollocks that more people bought the 360 for the promise of Halo 3 than for Microsoft's sake.

It seems to me that brand loyalty is one of the smallest factors in why the 360 did so well. Cheap console, massive game library, easy to use, easy to get hold of, largely backwards compatible, came out a year earlier. With that stacked in its favour, it flummoxes me why people revert to the old "uh, it's all brand loyalty" argument. As MILF pointed out, it's more reasonable to argue that brand loyalty practically held up the PS3 in its early days. Expensive console, tiny library compared to the PS2, no backwards compatibility (except in one version). It's no surprise that Sony had to wait for the 360 to stop selling so fast and finally stabilise in sales before they reduced the price of the PS3 to try to entice some new people in.

The main reason the 360 performed as well as it did compared to the PS3 is simply because Microsoft performed so much better as a business. They were very clever and aggressive with their tactics, in particular advertising, whereas Sony pretty much put a bullet in the legacy of it's greatest success from the start.

Perhaps 'Brand Loyal' is a bad term to use here.

Because there was a lot of stuff people would claim about PS3 that was just plain wrong, something that isn't going to come from the 360 out preforming the PS3. 360 having a better market strategy doesn't equate to BS lies like saying the PS3 has just as high of a failure rate.

Well, yeah. Once stupid people actually buy stuff, they tend to respond to negative criticism of their stuff with stupidity. xD

I've never heard about the PS3 having many failures, though. Other than glaring security ones! OOOOOHHHHHHHHHHH!

Like XBox's servers had never gotten hacked before. :p

I know, but it gets such a great reaction from fanboys, regardless of console. ;)

Ah the fun of poking fan boys. :p

I don't ever have to hear how 360 is the best console ever from Microsoft fanboys ever, ever again now! :jess:

*looks around the internet*

Never mind. :eep:

GUYS a "case study in brand loyalty" means you analyze how it was affected by various factors, not that brand loyalty was a factor in anything. I just think it's interesting how Microsoft (and Sony itself) were able to dwindle away that PS2 market share with a variety of methods.

If there was one way in which brand loyalty was a factor, it was definitely in the way in which Microsoft galvanized their users into marketing evangelists. That $50 a year is worthless unless there's people on the network, and that first year crowd was able to get their friends to buy the system, to get their friends to buy the system to the point where people aren't buying game consoles for their games anymore; as some EoFFers admit, they're buying it if their friends have it instead. And it became negative. I remember one Xbox mag had a headline: "Halo 3 is Coming - The PS3 is Dead." And as we've seen in this thread, it felt like every 360 owner had to have a ready explanation as to why they didn't just buy a PS3 instead. I've never seen a console war this bad since the Sega and Nintendo days, and even then, we never talked about sales figures and marketing strategies. I didn't even know people kept track of those kinds of things until this generation.

Yet here you all are putting on your business caps and telling us how Sony shot itself in the foot and that Microsoft has done a better job, doing your best to cover your eyes even in a thread discussing how they just pushed almost 80 million consoles in 6 years.

Why do you care? There's more consoles in households and more games to go with them than ever before. All three manufacturers along with the publishers have done an amazing job putting gaming in the forefront of the media and people's lives. I fault them for not providing the kinds of games I like to play, not for selling a few less systems every year than they did with the PS2.

The 360 is pretty meh considering that you have to replace the batteries in your controller every 4 weeks. I grabbed my old PS one controller and hugged it and tears and apologized for taking it for granted. :cry:

Should of brought a PS3.

I'm not buying a X-BOX 4 or 720. I'm done with Microsoft. Bunch of overrated trout.

Well done PS3 and sorry for not buying you.

Just buy a wire. xD

I honestly, seriously hate to be THAT guy, but...

>2013
>caring about how people play video games

I just don't really see the point. If you prefer a console or whatever, that's cool. It's your choice. But it gets old real quick when people try to push their preferences on others. The world isn't going to end because someone else like [x] over [y].

Nor shall the world end if I tell someone why they are wrong! :monster:

Eh, as far as the video game industry goes, there are much, much bigger problems out there than what console/PC/whatever people choose to play on. Just makes no sense to linger on such a mundane issue.

Then again, I am self sufficient can afford basically what I want, so that might have something to do with my view.

I found the later end of the seventh generation (That is the 360 and PS3 right? I'm so behind on trend) to be rather underwhelming. Seriously, 2012 was just a boring year for games. I can't even remember what crazy, innovative game came out that year. I think Microsoft capitalised early with the Halo series and rode that wave to a high crest. Meanwhile, the PS3 sort of assumed that the amazement of the PS2 would carry it along, and it sort of didn't.

If anything, they were both taken aback with how well the Nintendo Wii did actually! That matched up fairly well too. Super Smash Bros. Brawl was the best selling game of 2008, Mario Galaxy was a hit, hell, even Mario Party did quite well this generation. I'm not sure about actual sale figures, but the Wii was damn close to the two "big boys".

As for the next generation, well, we have the Wii U, which is sort of a 7.5 gap fill meant to tide people over until the 720 or whatever comes out. Will Sony continue this reign? It remains to be seen. The Halo makers still have two more games of this new trilogy left and well I'm sure they will milk Halo, and Call of Duty for all it's worth. I think the Xbox has more solid exclusives though. While I can think of Halo and other titles, what is an actual exclusive for the PS3? Little Big Planet I think is one, and the Uncharted Series were very popular. Eh. We shall see where it leads.

I guess I'm more "loyal" to Sony if only because I was brought up in a Sony household. My older brother loved playing Final Fantasy VII and VIII, so he naturally had a PS1. The love affair continued on really. That, and the fact that I don't really play online, like ever. The PS3 is probably better for single player while every Xbox game I know of is tweaked so that single-player mode is "target practise" for the on-line experience.

ITT: buttmad

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeoCracker

Not surprised it took this long, what with all the 360 owners having to buy brand new 360's after their first ones crapped out on them.

---

I'm on my original one from 2007. :colbert:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NorthernChaosGod

ITT: buttmad

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeoCracker

Not surprised it took this long, what with all the 360 owners having to buy brand new 360's after their first ones crapped out on them.

---

I'm on my original one from 2007. :colbert:

---

It's wierd. Everyone I know except for two people got a red ring. One of the two people who didn't has effectively had his 360 snowed on, rained on, and dropped several times and it worked just fine. It's like the 360 thrives on abuse. ;P

360: Out earlier (this is a massive advantage, highly understated), cheaper, more FPS games, better built when dealing with online multiplayer games. These are the reasons I feel this console did very well for the initial years. Being out earlier meant that gamers flooded to find out what the HD games would be like and they loved them. The price allowed them to remain competitive for a very, very long time. More FPS games in today's generation of gamers is a very important thing because most gamers are FPS gamers. The online multiplayer functionality was also a big boost for the multiplayer functionality of FPS games - I always felt that Halo 3 gave me a much better experience than any of the PS3 online multiplayer games, not when speaking of the actual fights but more so when speaking of how easy it was to get into a game with your friends.

PS3: More powerful, more functional, more variation in game genre/type, free online. Being out a year later meant that less people had an instant demand for this console, let alone were able to justify the asking price which the power of the PS3 was partially responsible for. The functionality, however, which was the main reason for the asking price being so much higher, was notable. It was a much better home entertainment system than the 360 when it comes to being able to do more than simply play games. The variation in games is what drew me to the console (I own both, but use the PS3 more) as while I do like FPS games, I like variation even more. The free online bit is the part that kept me using the system as I don't like having to pay to get Xbox Live. This equates to a poorer performance with online games' features but it's a sacrifice I can justify as I don't go online as often as others do.

In short, both have advantages and disadvantages depending on the gamer. I'm personally quite happy to switch between the two depending on the game. Eventually, I might even be able to justify the cost of Xbox Live again, but I doubt that will be anytime too soon as online gaming isn't my bread and butter (although I do concede that I really miss the early days of Halo 3 with Dan, Psy, Jess, Danielle and others).

The overall winner when it comes to manufacturers was, without question, Sony. Not because of anything to do with gaming, though. Sony putting the Blu-Ray into every PS3 was the driving force behind the Blu-Ray beating the HD-DVD. Sony, along with a couple of other companies, own the patent to Blu-Ray. With the advent of online downloading of movies, this may not matter a massive amount in the very-long-run, but for a good five or six years now the Blu-Ray has been king of the retail film release market. If it were not for the PS3, I'm not so sure this would have happened. Still, Microsoft have certainly advanced significantly in the US and UK markets in particular, and while they may be behind in sales by whatever marginal amount, they are still up on market share compared to where they were before this generation, and that can't be ignored.

Now the big question is whether or not the next generation of consoles can justify themselves, and we'll see where that goes!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quinter Wonderland

Just buy a wire. xD

---

You can do that ??

Oh my gosh. I feel so dumb. :confused:

I haven't played games on a console (outside of a few games of FIFA at parties) for about 2 years. I invariably get bored within half an hour and my PS3 doesn't allow the genius of of alt-tabbing and doing something else for a while before coming back to it later.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maybee

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quinter Wonderland

Just buy a wire. xD

---

You can do that ??

Oh my gosh. I feel so dumb. :confused:

---

You can, although I'd still say the 360 controller doesn't last as long as my PS3 controller. Not sure if there's any reason why.

Superiority? ;)

On that note, I found out why I never liked the PS3 controller. The reason is because I bought a 360 controller for Windows. They are both too light. I don't like the insubstantiality of them. The PS3 one also has those horrible saggy flaps instead of nice, meaty triggers, but it's mostly the weight.

My housemate moving in with his 360 has pleased me immensely. I now have the best of both worlds. :D

I can't stand the 360 controller though... it just doesn't sit right in my hands. Though it's probably because I've been using Playstation controllers since 1997.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loony BoB

The free online bit is the part that kept me using the system as I don't like having to pay to get Xbox Live. This equates to a poorer performance with online games' features but it's a sacrifice I can justify as I don't go online as often as others do.

---

I think this was an early-day thing. It seems like ever since Modern Warfare 2 in 2009, every game on the PS3 has had easy-to-use party systems and cross-game invites.

I dunno, Far Cry 3 for me was certainly fast to get a match started, but that didn't mean I felt the way it got a match started was very user-friendly, nor the speed at which it replaced players in co-op. Great game when we get to play it for a long time but the server issues are also terrible. Essentially, every problem I have with Far Cry 3 goes back to Ubisoft and Sony. I'm not sure if it's any different on the 360, though... I did like that Far Cry 3 actually allowed both smitten and myself to log in under each of our accounts at the same time, though. :p I think Resistsance 3 did, too, but many of the older games such as Resistance didn't allow such things.

Uncharted 2/3 was just way too slow to put together matches.

BoB, I've never understood why you always have a huge moan about having to pay for Xbox Live when you pay double that for FFXI which is just one game :p

I don't pay for FFXI. ;) FFXIV, though, I play on a regular basis and it gets constant meaty updates which me and a bunch of friends enjoy. Meanwhile, Xbox Live is a service that allows me to play games online which I can play for free on other systems, exclusives excepted. I can't justify that for Xbox Live because I wouldn't use it nearly enough to make it worthwhile.

I loved how the MS fanboys liked to mention how the PS3 was 500-600 bucks at launch as if it was a bad thing, while conveniently forgetting that most Blu-ray players at the time were about the same price, if not more. For the same amount, you got a fully-fledged media player! It was just like when PS2 came out and had a DVD player. It launched at like 250-300 bucks, while most DVD players at the time were about that price as well.

In retrospect, looking at this whole console war, I'm surprised PS3 didn't catch up sooner than it did.

That was embarrassing to read.

Don't know why, since what I said was accurate. :monster:

Well done to Sony, I guess? Better late than never...?

But as has been said, this should have happened ages ago. xD I mean, they had the whole of Japan pretty much refusing to buy the Xbox console, that should have been a huge leg up to them in this particular race. Ah well, whatever.

I shall be purchasing a PS3 at some point soon, now that a (preowned) console now falls in my price range. I knew this day would come at some point. ;_; Finally gonna fill in the gaps of the great games this console generation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aulayna

Just think if they kept backwards compatability and didn't cause all sorts of hell and hoops to jump through for publishers to provide DLC and other content those figures would probably have been a lot higher. This generation of consoles is what caused me to ultimately come out of it as a PC gamer. Barring a stellar line up of launch titles and a PSN re-envisioned from the ground-up Sony won't be getting a day one purchase from me in the next generation.

---

I agree with you completely, Aulayna. The Playstation 3 could have been a much better console if it had kept the backwards compatibility. I, too, have strayed from purchasing as many console games as I once did — mostly because of the lack of traditional role-playing games — but also because of the lack of backwards compatibility and the rise of Playstation 2 emulation. Why should I play one of my old games on a Playstation 2 when I can get better graphics and access to save states on my computer?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psychotic

BoB, I've never understood why you always have a huge moan about having to pay for Xbox Live when you pay double that for FFXI which is just one game :p

---

You pay to play on their servers in a persistent game world. When you play on xbl, you pay to connect directly to some other guy's xb360s and have the games hosted on some end user's troutty connection.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roogle

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aulayna

Just think if they kept backwards compatability and didn't cause all sorts of hell and hoops to jump through for publishers to provide DLC and other content those figures would probably have been a lot higher. This generation of consoles is what caused me to ultimately come out of it as a PC gamer. Barring a stellar line up of launch titles and a PSN re-envisioned from the ground-up Sony won't be getting a day one purchase from me in the next generation.

---

I agree with you completely, Aulayna. The Playstation 3 could have been a much better console if it had kept the backwards compatibility. I, too, have strayed from purchasing as many console games as I once did — mostly because of the lack of traditional role-playing games — but also because of the lack of backwards compatibility and the rise of Playstation 2 emulation. Why should I play one of my old games on a Playstation 2 when I can get better graphics and access to save states on my computer?

---

To support the people who spent time making the game? Also, backwards compatibility doesn't magically improve the graphics, so even if the PS3 played PSX and PS2 games you would still end up with the same "I can get better graphics and access to save states on my computer" scenario.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mirage

You pay to play on their servers in a persistent game world. When you play on xbl, you pay to connect directly to some other guy's xb360s and have the games hosted on some end user's troutty connection.

---

Early on, I was of the opinion that the cost of Xbox Live was easily worth it. They had loads of decent shows, and some other great features, that justified the price tag (along with the whole "playing the smurfing games" part). Now, however, it's just a mess of adverts and troutty features, so they can just smurf right off. I cannot stand advertising on a paid service.

It's not that it's bad to pay for a service that offers you deals and stuff like that. That's entirely fine. What sucks is that the most basic "i want to play against my friend who bought the same game as me" stuff requires monthly payments too. PSN does it right. It lets everyone play with everyone for no monthly fee, and offers extra features for those who pay, such as automatic updates, deals on DLC, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quinter Wonderland

I cannot stand advertising on a paid service.

---

Watching television must be a harrowing experience.

I don't have a TV. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Old Manus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quinter Wonderland

I cannot stand advertising on a paid service.

---

Watching television must be a harrowing experience.

---

That's like complaining about advertisement on the internet when you've paid for your internet access. You pay for the method of bringing the signals to your house, not for the channels themselves.

If you want TV channels free of advertisement, those exist, if you're willing to pay for them. Just like you can avoid advertisements on some web sites if you pay for them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mirage

That's like complaining about advertisement on the internet when you've paid for your internet access. You pay for the method of bringing the signals to your house, not for the channels themselves.

---

You could say that about any subscription service.

It was a tongue in cheek remark btw, I don't actually care about Quin's media habits.

It was clearly a personal attack. Someone ban Manus. :cry:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loony BoB

To support the people who spent time making the game?

---

Use of a PS2 emulator doesn't necessarily mean that you pirated the game. Not that it matters anymore since the odds of finding a brand new, sealed copy of a PS2 game is pretty low. You can't even argue that buying the PS2 is supporting Sony now.

Quote:

---

Also, backwards compatibility doesn't magically improve the graphics, so even if the PS3 played PSX and PS2 games you would still end up with the same "I can get better graphics and access to save states on my computer" scenario.

---

The PS3 does play PSX games still, and it does improve the graphics. Though I doubt it's nearly as much as the emulators out there and still no save states of course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Old Manus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mirage

That's like complaining about advertisement on the internet when you've paid for your internet access. You pay for the method of bringing the signals to your house, not for the channels themselves.

---

You could say that about any subscription service.

It was a tongue in cheek remark btw, I don't actually care about Quin's media habits.

---

I don't believe you and choose to believe that you are just really really really really dumb.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bubba

My housemate moving in with his 360 has pleased me immensely. I now have the best of both worlds. :D

I can't stand the 360 controller though... it just doesn't sit right in my hands. Though it's probably because I've been using Playstation controllers since 1997.

---

What? The 360 controller is like the most comfortable controller ever.

I have to say it gets more or less as uncomfortable from a long session as the dualshock, really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NorthernChaosGod

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bubba

My housemate moving in with his 360 has pleased me immensely. I now have the best of both worlds. :D

I can't stand the 360 controller though... it just doesn't sit right in my hands. Though it's probably because I've been using Playstation controllers since 1997.

---

What? The 360 controller is like the most comfortable controller ever.

---

You're probably right. However, having used the Playstation controller pretty much exclusively since I was 15... anything else is gonna feel weird.

Yeah, I have to agree on that one. I also find that having the analogue sticks in different locations to each other is really awkward on the 360 controller. I can get used to it easily enough, but I still find the PlayStation variants more natural when it comes to positioning of the various buttons/sticks. The 360 controller is smoother, though, and I do like that when it comes to looks. I'm hoping the PS4 controller is very similar to the PS3 one, but smoothed out. That would be nice.

They are both still great controllers, though, when you compare them to old-school stuff.

You two have funky hands.

Hands are, for the most part, symmetrical... so I prefer the layout of controllers to be the same. :p I'm not saying the 360 is a bad controller at all, nor that it's not comfy, just that the layout of the buttons and sticks etc. doesn't make much sense to me, while that of the PS3 does. I wonder what the thinking behind the design was?

That actually feels much more comfortable to me, my hands get tired or cramped from a Dualshock style controller eventually.

But the right side has the stick low while the other one has the stick high. Do you still get cramp on your right hand, or...? :p I could understand what you're saying if both sticks were high instead of being both low like they are with the PS3 controller, but the 360 controller is half PS3-design, half-not.

What, loonybob. You don't use the right stick nearly as often, that's why you don't cramp up. seriously do you even game?

I obviously play different games than you, because I use both sticks almost constantly... especially in games where the right stick controls the camera. I more often than not have my thumbs on the sticks at any time I'm not using the buttons for whatever reason. It's the 'default' position, if you like.

Of course, I haven't had cramp from overgaming since I was about 13-16 years old. I guess I have developed a resistance to it. xD

You switch between the face buttons and the right analogue stick pretty damned often, while your left thumb more or less always rests on your right stick, unless you are playing a vs fighter. Or are you saying your super special games require you to change camera positions more often than receiving button input? Maybe you should play games that don't have dumb cameras i guess.

It's not about having dumb cameras, it's about enjoying being able to walk in one direction while looking to the left/right/up/down etc.

First and third person viewpoint games often require a lot of camera-adjusting if you want to get the best out of them, and good games make use of the bumper/trigger buttons for regular usage and save the face buttons for situational events. A good example - for me, at least - is Batman: Arkham City which I've been using a lot lately. To move around, I use the left analogue stick. For sight adjustment using the camera, I use the right analogue stick. This allows me to move around the screen with fairly fluid motions, a useful thing in the game. The buttons I use in fights, while the gadgets are primarily controlled by the bumper/trigger buttons.

FPS games naturally require a massive amount of camera control considering it's how you target things, and games like Uncharted benefit greatly from this, too. You still use buttons for things like reloading, but it's not as vital. JRPGs with camera control allow for aesthetic rewards when you can control your camera angle while moving around, such as in XIII and XIII-2. Obviously in games that have no camera control, the right stick more often than not becomes far less important.

What games do you play that require you to be constantly pressing ABXY/XOTriangleSquare?

Who said anything about constantly? Not me, that's for sure!

But if you really want to, every fighting game I play, gran turismo 5, Ninja gaiden also takes care of most of the camera positioning without me needing to use the stick, and considering enemies throw themselves at you nearly 24/7, you kind have to keep your fingers on the attack buttons most of the time.

Yeah, I think we play games with very different priorities when it comes to camera and button-actions (outside of the trigger/bumper buttons, which are always available regardless of how you prefer to hold a controller).

I don't think, for example, straight forward car racing games are ever going to really require you to change your camera angle.

There's the replay mode and photo mode!

In either case, GT5 is the only racing game I have. The other games I mentioned outnumber it by like 6 times. The rest of my games usually switch between face buttons and right stick pretty often, so there's no "stay in awkward position for a long time" going on.

Oh, yeah, I don't find it terribly awkward really - I just find it strange that they would switch the button/stick around like that, particularly considering the 360 is such a FPS-focused console compared to the PS3.

I don't mind the DS controllers at all, but I do prefer the gamecube controller and that thing has the dpad and stick swapped around.

Oh man, I hated the Gamecube and N64 controllers. Admittedly I didn't use the former often enough to get used to it, though, but the latter one was so crazy. But worth it for Mario Kart and GoldenEye 007.

the N64 is crazy but the GC controller was sex from day one.

Gamecube is the most amazing controller constructed to this day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loony BoB

Hands are, for the most part, symmetrical... so I prefer the layout of controllers to be the same. :p I'm not saying the 360 is a bad controller at all, nor that it's not comfy, just that the layout of the buttons and sticks etc. doesn't make much sense to me, while that of the PS3 does. I wonder what the thinking behind the design was?

---

Yeah, the 360 controller was also a bit bulky, so playing fighting games especially on it was a chore (I know somebody's gonna mention playing them with an arcade stick, but that cannot be done anymore after an injury I sustained 13 years ago). Meanwhile I could do pretty much anything on a Dualshock controller.

I think in the 360's case it was that they knew it'd get more of the FPS games and sports games and such (and it did) so they designed the controller with the left analog stick up top to make aiming easier, and the right one on the bottom for the camera. You'll notice that in practically every shooter and sports game on the 360, the controls are the same. I wouldn't know about on the PS3, since I never played the PS3 for those types of games. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Polnareff

they designed the controller with the left analog stick up top to make aiming easier

---

Oh, I didn't know about this. I had no idea it made aiming easier. I suck regardless, so I suppose that makes sense. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Polnareff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loony BoB

Hands are, for the most part, symmetrical... so I prefer the layout of controllers to be the same. :p I'm not saying the 360 is a bad controller at all, nor that it's not comfy, just that the layout of the buttons and sticks etc. doesn't make much sense to me, while that of the PS3 does. I wonder what the thinking behind the design was?

---

Yeah, the 360 controller was also a bit bulky, so playing fighting games especially on it was a chore (I know somebody's gonna mention playing them with an arcade stick, but that cannot be done anymore after an injury I sustained 13 years ago). Meanwhile I could do pretty much anything on a Dualshock controller.

I think in the 360's case it was that they knew it'd get more of the FPS games and sports games and such (and it did) so they designed the controller with the left analog stick up top to make aiming easier, and the right one on the bottom for the camera. You'll notice that in practically every shooter and sports game on the 360, the controls are the same. I wouldn't know about on the PS3, since I never played the PS3 for those types of games. :p

---

Try a hitbox for fighting games then :p.

Totally shoving this article in my friends face.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loony BoB

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Polnareff

they designed the controller with the left analog stick up top to make aiming easier

---

Oh, I didn't know about this. I had no idea it made aiming easier. I suck regardless, so I suppose that makes sense. ;)

---

I noticed, at least in my case, that it's a little easier for me to play shooters on the 360 than the PS3. But it's easier for me to play everything else but shooters and sports games on the PS3. The fact that the left analog is up top makes it a bit more natural for those types of games, especially with the degree of control that analog gives you.

It would make a bit of sense, considering the original Xbox also had a troutload of shooters on it. The Xbox S controller (which originally was just a Japan-only controller until complaints about the Duke started coming in) was pretty damn good for shooters and still seems to be held as a sort of benchmark, or at least a decent alternative to a mouse and keyboard layout (I still don't understand to this day how one can play a shooter with a mouse/keyboard, but it seems to be the preferred way of doing it). I can agree with that. Hell, the 360 controller itself is kind of a throwback to the original controller, just sleeker.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Polnareff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loony BoB

I suck regardless, so I suppose that makes sense. ;)

---

I noticed

---

:(

Well, just me, personally, and I play hundreds of hours of shooters every year on console and PC, I do actually prefer the symmetry. I'm aiming and moving at the same time and I like them being operated in almost the same way. I think it helps me get better synergy for the games where strafing is more important, arena shooters like Unreal or movement-heavy ones like Killzone. But in the twitch shooters like Call of Duty, you need to constantly be doing both at the same time, and it just feels natural for me.

Katamari takes it further - I need those things horizontally aligned!

You could always buy a pro modular gamepad where you can freely move sticks, dpads and face buttons around to whatever you prefer.

Edit, I was wrong. The one I was thinking about doesn't let you move the face buttons around.

http://www.engadget.com/2012/01/29/m...er-review-ps3/

I'm sure there exist others that do let you do that, though.

Damn mirage, that's pretty tight! It'd be cool to have differen companies making things like that more refined and affordable for the next generation.

>>> Blu-ray won.. kind of expected that..:luca:

I remember the whole thing with HD-DVD, when the Walmart near my house had about 10 HD DVDs on sale, and the HD-DVD add-on for 360. I'm surprised it didn't catch on. Blu-ray is cool, but it took developers a long time to even begin to come to grips with the disc speed.

You know the whole PS3 surpasses 360 in sales....

Maybe it has but it still isn't going to put it ahead on profits when you take in the £272m fine for the ps3 hack.

As of today, you can now access the PS store on PC!!!!

Introducing the New Sony Entertainment Network Online Store – PlayStation Blog

No, you can't. You can access it on Windows.

The web page actively blocks non-windows users, even if the site works on Firefox in Windows, it will not work on Firefox in a non-windows OS. That's a pretty terrible choice to make.

Unless you make your Firefox lie and tell the website it is running on Windows, then it works perfectly, but this should never be necessary.

I honestly don't care if it's Sony, Nintendo, Xbox, Atari, or Sega. If it makes games I want to play and is backwards compatible, I will buy it. It just so happens that Xbox met my needs in terms of games I wanted, is backwards compatible with my former Xbox games that I still occasionally play and for my Sony needs I still have my PS2. No games exclusive to PS3 aside from Uncharted series are games I want. I use my friend's PS3 consoles to play Uncharted or other exclusive PS3 games. The only let down is that many of my friends now play online games for PS3 so I have to go over my boyfriend's house just to play online with them. I still enjoy Xbox Live a lot more though.

Also I don't have blu-rays...just DVD movies...

^ I, for one, would care if it was Sega, because that would be awesome.

Totally wouldn't happen though :(.

That's part of the allure, yes :love: