Capello gives 'PlayStation Culture' the boot

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

February 8th, 2008, 16:33
ElRazur

God, too much tension in here. Do you guys wanna get a room and relief each other or something?

It is a bit sad when people think it is cook to come into a ps3 section of the forum to stir things up.
February 8th, 2008, 16:45
Accordion

Quote:

Originally Posted by F9zDark

No, Wii culture exists because Nintendo was desperate to try and reclaim their position as Number 1 (which they haven't had since the SNES) so they decided to make the cheapest, least advanced console, and market it to the demographic that hasn't been touched by console gaming EVER, and prayed to god that they came out on top.

The only reason Wii culture exists, is again, because the Playstation Brand has held the Number 1 position since 1995.

not really. the Wii exists because the PS2 proved that casual alternative games sell very well, with the eyetoy, singstar, Buzz, etc

Gaming culture in general owes a great deal to what the playstation did for the image of gaming in the press. Playstation was desirable, and Playstation 2 was innovative. Both have brought gaming into the mainstream more than any other consoles except maybe the DS and Wii, but these examples are [to me] clever implementation of proven ideas. It has paid off however.
February 8th, 2008, 16:45
JKKDARK

Quote:

Originally Posted by F9zDark

Uh no not owned. The PS3 is successful unlike the Saturn. Having sold 10.5 million consoles in its first year on the market.

Don't bring up "similar" situations to avoid my discussion; it only shows that you know I owned your dumb german tart ass and that you have nothing else to say about it.

PlayStation 3 sold the same number as the Dreamcast and only one million more than the Saturn. So I don't think you can use the word successful for the PlayStation 3.
I said a perfect example, because you said the Wii is not a next-gen console (seventh generation), and I was showing that there were systems with inferior graphics than the systems from the same generation.

Also how can you say PlayStation 3 is successful when you have systems like Xbox 360 and Wii which sold 17.7 million and 20.13 million consoles repectively?
February 8th, 2008, 16:55
F9zDark

Quote:

Originally Posted by JKKDARK

PlayStation 3 sold the same number as the Dreamcast and only one million more than the Saturn. So I don't think you can use the word successful for the PlayStation 3.
I said a perfect example, because you said the Wii is not a next-gen console (seventh generation), and I was showing that there were systems with inferior graphics than the systems from the same generation.

Also how can you say PlayStation 3 is successful when you have systems like Xbox 360 and Wii which sold 17.7 million and 20.13 million consoles repectively?

Its successful because in the same time period (1 year) it has sold more than the than Xbox360. It is successful because it isn't plagued with a 33% failure rate as the other console; which has costed Microsoft billions of dollars to rectify.
February 8th, 2008, 16:57
DPyro

Playing the console game is not a race, its a marathon.
February 8th, 2008, 17:15
JKKDARK

Quote:

Originally Posted by F9zDark

Its successful because in the same time period (1 year) it has sold more than the than Xbox360.

No, it's one year and near 3 months. The PlayStation 3 was launched in November 19th 2006.
Plus the Wii was launched later than the PlayStation 3 and it sold 20+ million units.

Quote:

It is successful because it isn't plagued with a 33% failure rate as the other console; which has costed Microsoft billions of dollars to rectify.

It makes no sense because it's not a problem for companies like Microsoft and Sony which have more successful products than their video games consoles.
February 8th, 2008, 17:29
F9zDark

Quote:

Originally Posted by JKKDARK

It makes no sense because it's not a problem for companies like Microsoft and Sony which have more successful products than their video games consoles.

It makes perfect sense; Microsoft would have rather make everything as cheaply as possible and the pay for it out the ass later with hardware failures; Sony on the other hand paid for it up front with losing profits and delivered the most reliable and most high quality product out of all 3.
February 8th, 2008, 17:43
JKKDARK

Quote:

Originally Posted by F9zDark

It makes perfect sense; Microsoft would have rather make everything as cheaply as possible and the pay for it out the ass later with hardware failures; Sony on the other hand paid for it up front with losing profits and delivered the most reliable and most high quality product out of all 3.

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

Quality games over quality hardware.

Thanks, again, for trying.
February 8th, 2008, 18:25
F9zDark

Quote:

Originally Posted by JKKDARK

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

Quality games over quality hardware.

Thanks, again, for trying.

I'd much rather have a high quality piece of hardware that works day in and day out, doesn't require me to buy a new one every year or ship it off to be repaired every 6 months than have high quality games.
February 8th, 2008, 18:30
yaustar

This is going off-topic. Please take this to another thread or PMs please.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page