bit-tech.net

MS: "Sony is out of touch"

MS: "Sony is out of touch"

Microsoft's Aaron Greenberg has recently accused Sony of being out of touch with the modern markets.

The war of the words continues evermore it seems, with Microsoft's Aaron Greenberg calling out Sony's Kaz Hirai on his comments that the PlayStation 3 is the best and accusing Sony of being out of touch with the modern market.

Sony spokesperson Kaz Hirai yesterday proclaimed that Sony's PlayStation 3 made it the clear, official industry leader in console development - despite the fact that Nintendo is leading in sales figures. Nintendo doesn't count, argued Hirai, who said that the Wii could only play games, while the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 could do so much more. Sony made the claim despite the fact that even using that definition the Xbox 360 has still outsold the PlayStation 3.

Today Microsoft's Aaron Greenberg hit back at Sony, saying that these sounded like comments coming from an old hardware company that has grown comfortable and complacent with its position in the market.

"That complacent attitude is out of touch with where the industry and consumer is today," said Greenberg in an interview with The Bitbag.

"This generation won't be won over just hardware specs, but who can out-innovate when it comes to online and software. This is the kind of stuff that's in our DNA, and frankly moves the console war onto our home court," he continued.

"I'm confident we will outsell the PS3 throughout the entire generation by providing more innovation and building the best and broadest games library while growing our entertainment experiences on the leading online network," he stated.

"With a US install base lead now of more than seven million units (according to NPD), I can't imagine any scenario where the PS3 can catch up with us."

What's your opinion on the whole, totally petty argument? Let us know in the forums.

39 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
Bladestorm 22nd January 2009, 16:25 Quote
I think I want to know what halucenogenic Kaz was using before he made his comments about being the PS3 being the official industry leader (despite being in last place in every measurable statistic) and I'm not surprised that microsoft would comment on it.
Lepermessiah 22nd January 2009, 16:38 Quote
Prob the same drugs MS is on when they make just as childish and petty remarks. These 2 are like 2 kids fighting ove ra candy in Kindergarten.
Cobalt 22nd January 2009, 16:41 Quote
The PS3 is a good bit of hardware but Sony marketing failed utterly to make it an attractive buy. Considering that they were competing with M$ they should have had the upper hand (just look at the terrible Vista marketing) but somehow they screwed it up. Other things have been out of their control, like the relative dearth of decent exclusives and a less enticing online experience. People often make the point that you have to pay for Xbox live as if thats a bad thing; all it shows is that people are willing to pay for that service. I don't think I'd bother with PS3 online if I had to pay.
cjoyce1980 22nd January 2009, 16:43 Quote
i guess he is still living in the PS2 past.... this happened to Sega and Nintendo (but nintendo clawed back), a console manufacture gets cocky and complacent and believes that it's customers will follow it where ever it may go.

brand loyality doesn't get consumers anywhere these days, you just need to shopping around and find a product that suites your needs.

sony needs to remove the PS2 for store shelves if it wants users to get a PS3, as with each month that goes by, sony continue to sell around about the same amount of PS2 and it does with the PS3.

now, other that making a nice profit off the PS2, it can't be good for the PS3
UrbanMarine 22nd January 2009, 16:55 Quote
In my book Sony is still a quality company. Microsoft jumped to second place this generation because the price was right, the coding was simple and the game titles were there. Wii had a very good sale strategy. PS3 cost too much on all fronts.

Major Generation Battles (Release date:System:Sales)
1994-1996 Nintendo 64 (33million units) v Playstation (102million units) v Microsoft N/A (0)
2000-2001 Nintendo Gamecube (22million units) v PS2 (140million units) v Microsoft Xbox (24million units)
2005-2006 Nintendo Wii (35million units) v PS3 (17million units) v Microsoft 360 (28million units)

Most units that released later into the market had lowers sales. The Wii was the first to break that pattern. Overall in the total (all console sales) video game industry, Sony (1) Nintendo (2) Sega (3) Microsoft (4)

If the PS3 would of had the right price, simple coding and title support like during the PS2 era; The PS3 would be top dog in the console market. NO I don't own a PS3 and what I said is the reason why.
shigllgetcha 22nd January 2009, 16:56 Quote
sony just doesnt know how to deal properly with competion

sony are getting trounced in the games charts week after week.

the statements yesterday were completely ludicrious.

the 360 is stay way outselling the ps3. it really needs a price cut, quickly
ssj12 22nd January 2009, 17:20 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanMarine
In my book Sony is still a quality company. Microsoft jumped to second place this generation because the price was right, the coding was simple and the game titles were there. Wii had a very good sale strategy. PS3 cost too much on all fronts.

Major Generation Battles (Release date:System:Sales)
1994-1996 Nintendo 64 (33million units) v Playstation (102million units) v Microsoft N/A (0)
2000-2001 Nintendo Gamecube (22million units) v PS2 (140million units) v Microsoft Xbox (24million units)
2005-2006 Nintendo Wii (35million units) v PS3 (17million units) v Microsoft 360 (28million units)

Most units that released later into the market had lowers sales. The Wii was the first to break that pattern. Overall in the total (all console sales) video game industry, Sony (1) Nintendo (2) Sega (3) Microsoft (4)

If the PS3 would of had the right price, simple coding and title support like during the PS2 era; The PS3 would be top dog in the console market. NO I don't own a PS3 and what I said is the reason why.

Your console sales for this generations is off.

Wii: 46 million
360: 27.8 million
PS3: 19.8 million

Still Sony said market leader versus generation leader which might be true considering PS1 + PS2 + Ps3 + PSP sales
scarrmrcc 22nd January 2009, 17:22 Quote
well, the PS3 is a more advanced system...technically, with the blu-ray and such...but the problem is they are trying to sell ferraris to people wanting corvettes.
UrbanMarine 22nd January 2009, 17:27 Quote
The total market sales covered consoles only not handhelds. I used market leader sales as a side fact. This generations sales list I had was from Aug 1 2008 my mistake.

Sony might of lost this battle same as Microsoft but they're still winning the console war.

Like Scarrmrcc said Sony is selling Ferraris in a Vette market.
naokaji 22nd January 2009, 17:29 Quote
Atleast the PS3 doesn't have RROD...
Lepermessiah 22nd January 2009, 17:31 Quote
Come on, seriously, the ps2 is still selling well, sony has blu-ray in its pocket, peopel act like Sony is the dreamcast, geez. Sony is doing better then MS overall by a long shot if u look at market penetration. Sony will be fine.
Krikkit 22nd January 2009, 17:34 Quote
The PS3 is, imho, much better hardware, even putting Blu-Ray aside, simply because of the RRoD.

The 360 is, however, a console for the masses. At such low prices they will be selling much better for people who just want a new console, and aren't bothered about fancyness. Couple that with people wanting to spend less money in an economic downturn, and you're looking at even more of a difference in sales between 360 and PS3 imo.

Being less objective, I'd rather have a PS3. I loved my PS2 and PSX, I want to complete the collection and see if the PS3 is even close to basking in their majesty.
B1GBUD 22nd January 2009, 17:43 Quote
I think I need to hurry up and flog my PS3 Debugging station.... before it becomes a worthless POS
UrbanMarine 22nd January 2009, 17:46 Quote
Both companies are taking a huge lost this generation. PS3s cost per unit is higher than the sticker price and the 360 has over filled repair shops (RRoDs, Banned, DOA etc).

My Playstation (Original release in 94) still works. I blew up my first PS2 (1st Gen) in a month so I had to return it for another. I'm now on my 3rd 360 in 2 years: Original Premium, Arcade & Arcade(Falcon mobo).
[PUNK] crompers 22nd January 2009, 18:31 Quote
i dont understand how people put up with the noise of the xbox personally?! plus the fact that it is such badly put together hardware just makes it something i would never buy.

having said that i can see why MS are market leaders right now, primarily its down to price point. also sony should have been much more protective over its exclusives.
Skiddywinks 22nd January 2009, 18:46 Quote
The reason i put up with the 360's noise and RRoD is just simply because it has a far better selection of games on the whole. Of course, this is just personal, but the price, games, and Live are what make it an all around winner.

Wii doesn't cater to my tastes, and PS3 is too expensive, I don't want to have to pay for Bluray, and there are very few games on it that I can't get a similar or superior experience on the 360.

Now, don't get me wrong, the PS3 is an awesome piece of kit, but Sony are useless and made so many mistakes in it's marketing that they all built up and caused the situation they are in now. I remember Kaz (or someone else) saying that the PS3 would sell very well with no games. What an ass. And it looks like he was rather wrong as well. With a fair chunk of decent games, it still is in last place.

Sony just need to rethink their strategies is my personal opinion. MS need to produce something not rushed and of a high quality, and Ninty are just lost in my eyes :p
devdevil85 22nd January 2009, 18:57 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by scarrmrcc
well, the PS3 is a more advanced system...technically, with the blu-ray and such...but the problem is they are trying to sell ferraris to people wanting corvettes.
Blu-Ray is the main reason the PS3 is being held back back in terms of market penetration. It's what held it back from its launch date and it's what is holding it back currently with its higher initial pricing. Secondly, the built-in wireless is also a feature that is keeping the price higher. Everything else that the 80GB PS3 offers out of the box, the 60GB 360 does too and had Sony not included those two features above, it would probably (based on it's current cost) make the PS3 cost less overall than the 60GB 360 (at least in the US). Both consoles have an ethernet port (Gigabit on PS3), both offer HDMI (1.3a on PS3), both offer USB2.0 ports, both offer HDD's, both offer services to buy movies, games, etc. The 60GB 360 is $299 while the 80GB PS3 is $399. So, for $100 more, HW-wise with the PS3 you get built-in wireless and Blu-Ray capabilities. They may be trying to sell what you consider a "ferrari", but IMO, those things can be considered a necessity to certain consumers (they were to me), and Sony's marketing has to learn how to make these consumers aware of it and be able to help them cost-justify it, or else they will look at the other option.

Sony's marketing needs to raise questions to consumers that make them ask themselves: Do I care about true Hi-Definition movies? Will I need a wireless internet connection? Do I want to be able to upgrade my HDD affordably to a higher capacity to store all of my music, photos, movies, downloadable games, partial game installs, or maybe my entire games library (this is home media entertainment device, correct? I guess you could try streaming, but things take too long to load when file sizes/quantity of files gets into the 1000's)? Do I want free online multiplayer that is stable (and offers the most # of online players), but doesn't allow me to talk to my friends outside of games, or do I want to pay yearly for the one that does offer everything the other service does including the feature the other one didn't? If I want online do I care about what my friends/aquaintances are playing? If so, which console do most of them own, or use the most? Do I want rechargeable out of the box controllers? Do I want headphones out of the box? Do I care more for 360's exclusives or PS3's exclusives?

These are the questions that Sony's marketing department needs to answer (through marketing) for potential (average) customers or else they will continue to lose sales to 360 b/c they shouldn't be expected to ask these questions themselves.

Man I typed too much.
Ninja_182 22nd January 2009, 19:07 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssj12
Your console sales for this generations is off.

Wii: 46 million
360: 27.8 million
PS3: 19.8 million

Still Sony said market leader versus generation leader which might be true considering PS1 + PS2 + Ps3 + PSP sales

Nahh, if you factor PSP and all the older consoles in then by rite you have to factor gameboy in and im sure the following maths works out true

PS1 + PS2 + PS3 + PSP < NES + SNES + N64 + GC + Wii + GB + GBP + GBC + GBA + DS + them awesome watch things they used to make :)

They probably lose out on that one so much that, im not even going to bother with the maths.

It strikes me that Sony have this BMW like status in the consumer electronics market by just verbally convincing people they are in that position, its genious.


I also like how Nintendo dont get involved and even more how Sony said Wii sales dont count because its different.
UrbanMarine 22nd January 2009, 19:36 Quote
I see what you mean devdevil85. Most of the PS3 features are 8th Gen not 7th.

Only a few things.

The HDD size for the 360 is limited to Microsoft HDDs. The PS3 can use non-Sony HDDs for a lower cost with greater space.

The Dual Shock controller does come with a built in rechargable battery. The 360 requires you to buy those in kits.

This really is just the console version of the Mac vs PC pissing contest. I personally think the Macs I've used run like **** compared to my custom built PC with similar configs.
devdevil85 22nd January 2009, 19:58 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanMarine
I see what you mean devdevil85. Most of the PS3 features are 8th Gen not 7th.
Basically, I was just trying to cost justify that extra $100 that the guy was making into $1000.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanMarine
The HDD size for the 360 is limited to Microsoft HDDs. The PS3 can use non-Sony HDDs for a lower cost with greater space.
You can use non-MS HDD's on 360, but it's not supported and you are taking a risk that the HDD will crap out on you and all of your downloads/game saves/music/movies/photos/etc. are all are gone, and how much of that you can get back you will have to find out the hard way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanMarine
The Dual Shock controller does come with a built in rechargable battery. The 360 requires you to buy those in kits.
There is an advantage to being able to buy charge kits: they are independent of the controller you buy, meaning if you only have one controller and you forget to charge it the night before, if you have another charge kit sitting in the charger you can just pop it in the pop the dead one in the charger, but again how often are you really going to need that (I always plug my controller(s) back in when I'm finished)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanMarine
Most people don't see things in the long run but just what's in front of them when it comes to hardware. I've seen people spend more money on their 360 + accessories than a PS3. So they ended up spending the same amount or more but just overtime.
What's funny is most Arcade owners (the ones trying to spend the least amount of money) who have to have Live and renew it automatically (for $50/yr) via credit card will spend the same amount of money overall than an 80GB PS3 owner in 4 years time. Of course, you can purchase a Live card yourself on newegg for ~$40, but still. I will throw this out there though (and to be fair I will use retail pricing), to truly get the most out of the PS3, average consumers must purchase a HDMI cable ($30 Dynex brand at BestBuy) as well. Either way, I hope I made my point.
Skiddywinks 22nd January 2009, 21:02 Quote
The Live cost working out to be more than the PS3 in the long term has always tickled me. People say it as if you are throwing money down the drain every year.

Personally, I don't care how much more expensive my 360 ends up being; it cost less to buy initially and has a superior online component that is well worth the cost of a game.
CardJoe 22nd January 2009, 21:03 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by B1GBUD
I think I need to hurry up and flog my PS3 Debugging station.... before it becomes a worthless POS

You have a debug PS3? As in one that can play dev code? If so...PM me.
devdevil85 22nd January 2009, 21:48 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skiddywinks
The Live cost working out to be more than the PS3 in the long term has always tickled me. People say it as if you are throwing money down the drain every year.

Personally, I don't care how much more expensive my 360 ends up being; it cost less to buy initially and has a superior online component that is well worth the cost of a game.
Skiddy, I respect your appreciation for 360's cheaper initial cost and your enthusiasm for its Live service, but your statement about 'throwing money away' does have merit for users based on whether they use the extra features of Live or not.

I hate to keep beating a dead horse, but please explain to me how XBL is "superior" (meaning worth the extra $50 a year) to PSN? The only thing that I can think of off of the top of my head (and I use both services btw) is the ability to talk to friends outside of the game (up to 8 people). Does this truly make it that much better? Also, the PSN isn't a P2P based network (XBL is) currently allowing it to support up to 60 players (Resistance 2) and up to 256 players (once MAG debuts sometime this year). From what I have researched, the maximum players XBL supports currently is 18 (COD4&5).

IMO, both services are great. PSN is free and offers more players to be online at once. Live is a cost, but it allows up to 24 players (COD4&5) and the social experience is more seamless (though not by much).
n3mo 22nd January 2009, 23:38 Quote
PS3 is... weird. Powerful CPU coupled with crappy GPU.

But that aside, remember that most people are idiots and ignorants, they want "this funny gaming thingy", go to their nearest shop, see the funny and "nice" looking Wii aside "uber powerful", "serious" and "impressive" 360 and PS3 and choose... guess what. Most people just want exactly this - a "nice gaming thingy" to play with their friends. Just look at the street - majority of cars are cheap, mainstream crap. Look at the PCs - 95% of world's sales are cheap, generic "everyday usage" or office machines. Look at your friends - most of them are complete or nearly complete ignorants when it comes to something more than "cheapest pub in town". That's how it was, is and will always be.

And that is why Nokia makes 80% of their profit from their cheapest, most mainstream phones, the cheapest and "nicest" console will always win, mp3 is "suitable for most listeners" and why people say "I tried this Linux thing but there was some problem with my wifi card so I just use Vista". Sony underestimated the power of dark, underachieving, ignorant masses and made something for more serious players - forgetting that serious players are just a small percentage of all gamers.
steveo_mcg 23rd January 2009, 00:02 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by devdevil85


snip

You can use non-MS HDD's on 360, but it's not supported and you are taking a risk that the HDD will crap out on you and all of your downloads/game saves/music/movies/photos/etc. are all are gone, and how much of that you can get back you will have to find out the hard way.

snip

I agree pretty much with you but this is rubbish, how the risk with a Samsung (etc) hard disk any greater than with a MS branded one, the HD in your pc goes you better hope you have a good back up routine same goes for you console and your server etc.
Saivert 23rd January 2009, 08:33 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by n3mo
PS3 is... weird. Powerful CPU coupled with crappy GPU.
...
Sony underestimated the power of dark, underachieving, ignorant masses and made something for more serious players - forgetting that serious players are just a small percentage of all gamers.

Yes. PS3 has weird but powerful hardware. And most games to this day fails to take full advantage of this. The SPEs can also be used to help with the graphics, not just physics stuff.
But with multi-platform releases and generic game engines this will not happen.

And I adore Sony for making such a beast of a console. The Blu-ray addition was great. the PS3 really is an entertainment machine, not just a console. Too bad this only appeals to the techno-lust in us and hardcore gamers. The PS3 was not such a hit because of the steep price, but a lot of people are grateful Sony made this machine (it didn't have ZERO sales).
If Sony had made a console that appealed to the masses (read: cheap) it would have been mediocre.

I myself don't care about consoles at all. I'm an oddball. I'm a PC gamer. That means I spend even more money than what a PS3 costs in order to play games and have my fun.
So if you're going to talk about stuff that doesn't count (like Wii), I'm a great example.
B1GBUD 23rd January 2009, 10:41 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by CardJoe
Quote:
Originally Posted by B1GBUD
I think I need to hurry up and flog my PS3 Debugging station.... before it becomes a worthless POS

You have a debug PS3? As in one that can play dev code? If so...PM me.

done!!
D3s3rt_F0x 23rd January 2009, 10:52 Quote
Right all these comments about PS3 has better hardware etc fair enough but from people I know doing computer games at uni and lecturers its just a complete ball ache to program for compared to the xbox.

Now honestly looking at PS3 games what would you buy? I cant think of one game I'd want on a PS3 if I had one. There the issues sony has imo.

(Im an Xbox 360 owner btw but havent turned it on since last April when I played GTA3)
shigllgetcha 23rd January 2009, 11:35 Quote
end of the day they are consoles. game consoles. games sell consoles and the 360 has more. talk all you want about blu ray and the ps3 being an entertainment centre but its supposed to be a games console.

and look at the fact that its harder to program for and arguably will look better if you do it right, but what 3rd party developer is going to bother putting so much extra time into a console that is losing ever single week on the games charts(every multiformat game sells less on PS3 than 360 im sure there are a few exclusives that have out sold 360 games at the time im just using multi as an example)

point out the rrod all you want but it shows a faulty console is still out selling the ps3 and by a wide margin
impar 23rd January 2009, 11:36 Quote
Greetings!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Article
What's your opinion on the whole, totally petty argument?
A way for console makers to keep in the news after the initial "next-gen console" hype has passed.
rollo 23rd January 2009, 12:19 Quote
own all 3 consoles and pc

all 3 consoles ar ecurrently collecting dust

if the game is out on pc ill buy it for pc before any other console.

i use my ps3 as a media center for playing hd content. Havent turned on my 360 since gear of war 2 ( which was crap)
shigllgetcha 23rd January 2009, 12:41 Quote
^^ dont say that i bought it yesterday lol
Phil Rhodes 23rd January 2009, 14:25 Quote
Sony over-egged the pudding hopelessly with PS3 - tried to buy their way to success with a hardware spec so huge it became genuinely difficult to work with. Possibly this means we'll see the games getting better and better with time, but that's speculation.

Nintendo decided to compete with good ideas - and a workable implementation of gesture-based control which had been tried before (by Nintendo, no less) but never really worked as well as it does on the Wii.

Sony tried to be flash, Nintendo tried to be clever. Advantage Mario.
devdevil85 23rd January 2009, 16:19 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by D3s3rt_F0x
Now honestly looking at PS3 games what would you buy? I cant think of one game I'd want on a PS3 if I had one. There the issues sony has imo.)
Here, let me help you along: http://ps3.ign.com/articles/937/937162p4.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Rhodes
Sony over-egged the pudding hopelessly with PS3 - tried to buy their way to success with a hardware spec so huge it became genuinely difficult to work with. Possibly this means we'll see the games getting better and better with time, but that's speculation.

Nintendo decided to compete with good ideas - and a workable implementation of gesture-based control which had been tried before (by Nintendo, no less) but never really worked as well as it does on the Wii.

Sony tried to be flash, Nintendo tried to be clever. Advantage Mario.
Phil, how long do you think the Wii will continue to sell? 10 years? I severely doubt that. Sony decided to (just like with PS1 & PS2 ) pack the most advanced HW into their console so that it will last that long. It's not a sprint, it's a marathon. Based on the history of PS1/PS2 titles, IMO PS3's will only continue to get better like you said....
Quote:
Originally Posted by rollo
own all 3 consoles and pc

all 3 consoles ar ecurrently collecting dust

if the game is out on pc ill buy it for pc before any other console.

i use my ps3 as a media center for playing hd content. Havent turned on my 360 since gear of war 2 ( which was crap)
rollo, considering you own a PC (probably with great specs) I can see why your 360 hasn't been turned on. If history repeats itself, then most of its must-have exclusives will be coming to PC soon enough (except GOW2 if Mr. Cliff is to be trusted). As for the PS3, have you ever tried Motorstorm 1/2, Uncharted, GT5:P, LittleBigPlanet, Folklore, Heavenly Sword, Pixeljunk Monsters/Eden, Echochrome, MGS4 or Valkyria Chronicles? These are great titles that I have played that you won't find on PC. Just trying to help you out.
Phil Rhodes 23rd January 2009, 17:30 Quote
You're missing the point. The Wii audience isn't that bothered about graphics, which is, let's face it, what "hardware" comes down to. Nintendo has been clever twice, really - first by creating a device that's a well-executed example of a moderately novel idea, and also by pitching it to people who would moan like crazy if you tried to make them rebuy it every eighteen months.

I'm not a console guy either way, I have no axe to grind, but the Wii strikes me as a smart move and PS3 strikes me as wa-aayy too expensive. You need to be a console afficionado, which isn't a market anything like the size of the Wii. Ten years? I dunno. How long have they been selling Monopoly?
devdevil85 23rd January 2009, 18:01 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Rhodes
You're missing the point. The Wii audience isn't that bothered about graphics, which is, let's face it, what "hardware" comes down to. Nintendo has been clever twice, really - first by creating a device that's a well-executed example of a moderately novel idea, and also by pitching it to people who would moan like crazy if you tried to make them rebuy it every eighteen months.

I'm not a console guy either way, I have no axe to grind, but the Wii strikes me as a smart move and PS3 strikes me as wa-aayy too expensive. You need to be a console afficionado, which isn't a market anything like the size of the Wii. Ten years? I dunno. How long have they been selling Monopoly?
Phil, I totally agree that the Wii was a smart move by Nintendo. In regards to the "wa-aayy too expensive" statement, if you read my first post you would see that the 80GB PS3 is only $100 more than the 60GB 360, and you get built-in wifi and Blu-Ray capabilities (which I think is cost-justified). Of course Sony is targeting a different audience than the Wii (we can all agree on that), and in order for them to target that audience they felt it was best to implement a long-term strategy by going for a more "return on investment / pay more up-front, but get more in the long-run" type of approach which has not suited them well considering the recession and because most people don't really care about the extra features (i.e. Blu-ray) which is why 360 is doing so well). I think that it will take some time (meaning a couple price drops) before anyone can truly say PS3 was either a success or a failure again considering Sony is in this for the long-term (meaning not dropping price 2 times a year).
D3s3rt_F0x 23rd January 2009, 22:15 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by devdevil85
Here, let me help you along: http://ps3.ign.com/articles/937/937162p4.html

Ye like I said I havent seen one PS3 game that I want to play. Pretty flawed though using an argument for a PS3 from a PS3 site though aint it?
devdevil85 23rd January 2009, 22:33 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by D3s3rt_F0x
Quote:
Originally Posted by devdevil85
Here, let me help you along: http://ps3.ign.com/articles/937/937162p4.html

Ye like I said I havent seen one PS3 game that I want to play. Pretty flawed though using an argument for a PS3 from a PS3 site though aint it?
Are you kidding me? How is IGN a "PS3 site"? I just so happened to find the article under ps3.ign.com. So, to make you happy here it is on their 360 page: http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/937/937518p4.html. It was a universal article, not one created by a specific group handling a specific console (i.e. PS3). What more do you want?
soopahfly 25th January 2009, 17:24 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by naokaji
Atleast the PS3 doesn't have RROD...

But it does have a YLOD.
At least you can usually fix an RROD.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums