Unless he edited the post, apparently you also missed this part.

As with the Doom thread, you really need to finish reading before posting your incredulous and sarcastic responses.

The problem with the statement is while Sony had exclusivity on gaming consoles for Final Fantasy for at least the PS1 and PS2, Square was still producing them for Game Boy as they did with a lot of their already established IPs (or even new ones as seen with Kingdom Hearts).

The same problem is stated for Metal Gear games (Sony either had timed exclusivity or other games under the IP were made for other platforms) and Castlevania (which was on the N64 the same generation). That's like saying Call of Duty's success was attributed to the Xbox despite being available on the PS3 and PC (and selling just as many copies on both).

If those franchises weren't on PS1 or not as "exclusive," the franchises would still exist in their current state. Fuck, the Final Fantasy franchise has been a series of disappointments after VII.

What? None of these are "problems" with the statement, as it doesn't change the fact that the major releases of the franchises mentioned were on the Playstation, not to mention grew the audience and became bigger franchises. Games like Final Fantasy VII, Metal Gear Solid, or Symphony of the Night were huge on Playstation, and thus we would rate the Playstation's success as a console based on those. Whether they would have continued on other consoles is completely irrelevant to the discussion, since we're evaluating the consoles themselves as they existed already in history. How the hell do Final Fantasy titles showing up on Game Boy diminish the evaluation of the Playstation?

Or you could just admit you were wrong or misread his comment, but I guess that was too difficult.

Or since we're in a thread about what we believe is to be the most overrated console, I can keep my current opinion that I still believe the PS1 is the most overrated console of all time rather than have to argue on why it isn't since this entire thread is based upon emotions and opinions.

Who said you couldn't? None of this has anything to do with me pointing out that you misread someone's comment that some of those franchises continued on the Playstation, not started like you thought.

I don't even know why you inferred that the Sony and the PS1 were crucial to those franchises in your mocking initial reply, since nothing in brayzie's comment alludes to that.

You're pretty much stating here it's not a game console.

It was a whole lot of much ado about nothing. It's not like MS was doing anything different than Steam, except you could still resell games you buy. The whole online thing check wasn't great, and I still think it could be done without having to have a disc in every time as a key. And yes, I can buy everything digitally, but if I need to re-install a game, maybe I don't want to have to download it from the internet, when it's much faster from a disc. But whatever, the whole requiring a disc thing lives on.

Comparing apples to oranges. Kinect isn't the same as a button. And you aren't talking to a TV.

Yeah, most third party games look marginally better so far (seems to be changing though with games like Destiny looking to be virtually the same), but looks aren't everything. inFamous, while looking good, got boring fast, with uninteresting characters, and playing evil was stupid. I know, most games during the first year of launch aren't the best, but it still was a letdown when the game looked promising.

To play a game while having a cd playing? What's wrong with an idea like that? And since a game has to be fully installed anyway, using a disc every time is pointless.

Not my stance, that's what MS sold it as last year. "Sports, sports, sports, TV, TV, TV."

I don't buy that for a second. They didn't have anything in place, and never intended to. They thought people would just forgo discs/rentals/resale because...Steam. There's no proof either way and we'll likely never know the truth.

You compared the two, I was just following your lead. I'd argue that the one that can get tossed in the closet is the most useless gimmick, while the other still functions as a button.

Custom soundtracks are an awesome feature (no excuse to not have those) but a single CD... on repeat? Still confused on that one. You don't want to get up and change game discs but want to get up and change CDs? MP3s, ipod support or streaming off your network? Absolutely. How many people realistically buy CDs still? I do on occasion(when Amazon isn't cheaper), but the demand for CD support can't be that high. Forget CDs... I'm miffed that none of these consoles support Bluetooth for streaming. They want to push second screen stuff so why not take that extra step?

At any rate, I'm in the 'too early to judge this gen' group. The WiiU has been an unmitigated disaster and X1 not setting the world on fire so it's impossible for either to be overrated. Sony is ahead in sales, but isn't perfect either so it's hard to imagine it being overrated too.

No, the internet and people seemingly dismissing the Xbox One as just sports and tv. It wasn't, and anyone paying attention knows better.

I made the comparison because people called Kinect a gimmick (it works just fine for what it is), when that giant bar of a button is rather stupid, and if it's just another button, it's an obnoxious button to say the least. It was a frame of reference, since so many people have called the DS4 so great, when it has a couple of flaws (that button and battery life).

A CD and game disc are very different things, especially the price. I can always back up a cd, but a game disc, nope. Putting a disc in and out all the time, when you clearly don't have to, has nothing to do with being lazy and has more to do with alleviating risk of damaging a game. And just because CDs aren't as popular doesn't mean they shouldn't be capable of being played. Every PC with an optical drive, every DVD and Blu ray player can play CDs. It would seem fairly obvious to anyone that it could easily support CD playback. And I still have a decent collection of old CDs. What's it to you how I play them? And you mentioned nothing about DVD, which it also doesn't play for some odd reason. Let me guess, you're going to retort with "who buys discs of any kind anymore?" Maybe Sony also thinks "who uses Bluetooth streaming?"

That's fine if you want to dismiss my criticisms, but it's kind of pointless on your part.

It's an all around pointless argument from both sides.

You can't scratch a BD disc. Hell with proper use, I've never damaged a DVD/game anyway.

is that a challenge?

The resilience is kind of amazing...
Mostly, yes. But I had to stop lending DVDs to my brother because... kids.

Yes, go try to scratch a bunch of different BDs and report back!

I tried it on a demo disc with a set of keys. Can't do it. I'm still surprised that tech hasn't made it's way into other applications.

I'm surprised they haven't started coating the top of the discs. It's much more fragile than the bottom.

Sure you can, it's just harder too.

What're you doing with your games, man? :lol

Other people live in my house, I'm not here 24/7. You're still going on about this? Let it go, because this is just getting annoying.

Take your own advice.

oOo! Chainsaw'd!

When someone asks me questions, I usually have the courtesy to answer. Sorry I'm feeding trolls.

They are quite full.

Go pick on Chmiel and his lack of reading skills.

I don't want to pick on anyone. Speaking of lack of reading skills...

It was a joke. Lighten up Francis.

You'll be sorry Michael Corvin!