Now who shows their bias.

The only reason Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo make gaming consoles is to sell them. There is no competition for performance. There is no competition for devotion. The only point to making these consoles is to sell them.

Therefore, the console that is able to sell the most, is the best. It accomplished the single goal better than any other console. I know you Nintendo and Microsoft fans would love to come up with your own economic theories on how owner loyalty or performance can overcome pure sales numbers, but until someone does, you can not deny that by selling the most consoles - it wasn't even close - that PS2 is the best console of its generation.

Denying that shows your bias - which makes me think - if you're so biased against Sony, what are you doing in a PS3 thread? Threadcrapping?

Just to make things clear, I'm in the PS3 thread hoping to get some info on release dates/final hardware/launch titles; coincidentally the soul purpose of the thread.

You mean to tell me that you honestly think the PS2 was a better piece of hardware than the Xbox, just because it sold more? That’s laughable.

Let’s use last gen video player hardware as an example.

Laserdisc
BetaMax
VHS

By comparison VHS was the best right??

I love the PS2, Xbox, and the Gamecube the same as I love the 360 and I will love the PS3 and Revolution probably, I’m not threadcrapping. Just trying to show you that "Best" and "Best Seller" are two different things.

What about breaking, load-times, and over-heating, is it still the best? Nope. Those areas would go to the Gamecube. There is a difference in the two terms. Best is a subjective term. Best Selling is a fact.

Don't forget the Backstreet Boys had the Best album of 1999, and the Phantom Menace was the Best movie that year as well.

So pointing out another users erroneous use of terms is bias agains Sony now? Too rich.

Yet with all these preceived problems, it still managed to sell over four times as many units. I guess, at least for the majority of people on this planet (there is a world outside these forums), the goods greatly outweighed the bads.

If you have a problem with capitalism, you are going to have to pick a fight with someone other than me. Maybe you would like to start by disproving Adam Smith's free market theories? I mean, those have only been standing for a few hundred years - shouldn't take you more than 5 minutes to disprove them all, right?

Déjà vu, anyone?

Flay,

Are you suggesting that, even though I have hundreds of years worth of theories suggesting I am correct, I should give in because a handful of people don't see it that way?

I'd just like to know if this forum operates on mob mentality before I continue. If you notice, I have not yet disputed anyone on opinion, only facts which can be backed-up with evidence. I'm doing the same thing here, so what's the issue?

The problem here is that the invisible hand says nothing about what you are talking about. Go read the paper and stop basing your discussion on watching "A Beautiful Mind". Better yet, consider the thousands of other economic papers that have advanced the topic since then and then get back to us. Its great to see someone try and apply education to a discsusion but your understanding of capitialism and market forces needs to go beyond the basics before you can make the claim that what sells the most is the best.

You really need to let things go, man. This is a PS3 thread, yet you and others continue to derail it with pissy, inane arguments about the PS2 or Sony's financial status.

Honestly, it's just not worth the effort. Trust me, I used to get into the same endless arguments with Hinkle years ago and they were completely pointless. Our opinions never changed regardless of how much evidence or facts we used to support our side.

Flay,

I answered the question as posed by Sekrots. It was JM, kakihara1, Decker, and jeffdsmith who came back at me when I wasn't even addressing them. Why are you now coming at me for "derailing" the thread, when it was them? I didn't dispute how anyone else answered the question, just provided the answer I believe to be best.

So why my answer is attacked, and I get blamed for derailing the thread? Again I ask, is this forum run by mob mentality?

Excuse me for responding to a post in a thread.

Ugh, this is exactly why I stopped getting into it with Hinkle. Josh, take my advice or don't. I'm not going to perpetuate this cycle anymore.

Here's some useless probably already talked about news about Infinity Ward to attempt to get things back on track

http://www.computerandvideogames.com....php?id=134659

Perhaps a tour through the Pacific theater this time? Call of Duty 3 would be awesome on the PS3, but it's probably too soon for it to be released this year. It may be CoD2 instead.

The thing that got me in the article though is the fact that it says PS3/360 if it were indeed COD2 there would be no need for the 360 mention, unless of course it could be an expansion of COD2.

This ridiculous statement is the reason this thread is getting derailed. Your logic here is extremely flawed. It doesn't even hold up internally as, under your model, an item that sells 1,000 units at $1 profit/unit is 'better' than an item that sells 100 units at $50 profit/unit, despite the fact that the lower selling unit turned 5x the profit of its competitor.

Additionally, your theory continues to fail even if you change your simplistic definition to use profitability instead of sales quantity as the standard for determining the 'best' product. It ignores a multitude of variables.

Let's say I make candy bars and package some as X-bars and some as Y-bars, even though they're exactly the same. Do you think they're going to sell identically? What if one's more expensive than the other? What if X-bars come out a year before Y-bars and are much easier to find? What if X-bars come with a free soft drink and Y-bars come with a free bag of chips? I guarantee one would outsell the other and it would have absolutely nothing to do with the quality of product.

I hope that's enough for you to rethink your 'theory'. If not, I'd suggest starting another thread to discuss it, as this one is getting waaaay off topic and I imagine most of the people here prefer it not be closed.

wow. once again this thread is going WAY off topic. It needs to stay away from a pissing match. If not, it's going to be closed. Again.

Anyone else think that Sony leaks these stories to the press intentionally just to keep the PS3 in the public's psyche? I'm convinced there is some guerilla marketing going on here. First the story about the PS3 being delayed to next year, then the story about it costing $900 to make, then the HUB network service. I mean the companmy knows what it's doing. They weren't #1 two generations in a row for no reason (#1 in sales kids, not #1 as in the best... please don't hurt me! ). Anyone else think that this is their version of origen? Maybe not an ARG per se, but they are making EVERYONE talk about the PS3.

Maybe. There's a LOT of anticipation so anytime a little news comes out concerning it it's going to be hot talk. I'd be more inclined to believe they've got hired plants running around in forums spinning unyielding and humorously one-sided press on both the PS3 and Blu-Ray.

I swear I was playing Full Auto with a guy the other night that was hired by Sony, he was sort of half assed playing the game but he talked and talked non-stop about the PS3 and all the stuff it had coming with it completely unprovoked for like 30 minutes straight, before he said "I've got to go to another room guys" I assume to find more people to talk about PS3 to. It's a whole new form of telemarketing. I thought I was the only one that was a little put off by the guy but as soon as he left another guy was like "what was up with that dude"? definitely odd.

Yeah, because it had the most games, and thus the best selection of games, not because it was the best hardware (which it clearly wasn't). But most people buy consoles fo rgames, so that's all that matters.

If I could ask a PS3 question (I know, I know, but why not just try it in a PS3 thread) :
Will one be able to use their MS Pro Duo card for game saves and such? If so, there really wouldn't be much need for a HD, right? I mean downloaded maps, game data and MP3's could easily fit on a 1 GB stick, couldn't they?

Seems reasonable enough.. the only concern I'd have is access times reading/writing to the memory stick and if that would pose a problem for downloaded content for games. I'd imagine the HDD would only need to be used for downloading demos (ala Xbox 360) and for MMORPGs. I'm still quite curious on legacy memory card support.. if they don't include slots for the PS1/PS2 memory cards I hope beyond hope they offer some way to transfer old saves to the new formats.

They will have to have a way to load saves for PS1/2 since they fully support those two formats, I wouldn't be too concerned about that.

While obviously nothing is final I kind of remember around E3 something being brought up that there were no "current" memory card slots on the PS3 mock-ups. It was assumed at that time that all saving from PS1-PS3 would take place on Memory Stick Duos. I don't know.. it's probably better to wait until this E3 for more accurate information on it. I like the idea of keeping everything on a Duo, but I'd like there to be at least one old-school slot on the device in order to transfer your saves off of the previous memory cards onto the new format.

I think they should do it the way your cell phone adress book gets changed over, just have little units at the store that can transfer all your game saves to your new memory unit, that way you don't have to deal with the old PSone/PS2 memory cards anymore.