Battlefront3.net

DarthRevan19 wrote:that would be one horrible plan. if anything it would be ps3

reason? Paying for Xbox live + paying for subcription fee

PS3 paying for subscription fee

why ps3? its horrible

Pardon me, but you must have misread the text you quoted. As the PS3 doesn't force gamers to subscribe to a service in order to simply play online, the console is ideal for playing MMOs, which is the reason DUST 514 and FFXIV isn't being released for the 360.

Further, you provide no reason for the PS3 being "horrible", so I'm not sure whether you're blatantly trolling or not.

its terrible because you can never find a game on their servers, their safety is terrible becasue they got hacked and everyone credit card numbers were showed on the internet and a few others theres my proof it is horrible

DarthRevan19 wrote:its terrible because you can never find a game on their servers, their safety is terrible becasue they got hacked and everyone credit card numbers were showed on the internet and a few others theres my proof it is horrible

Xbox could be hacked just as easily my man. Its not just because it was PS3's servers but mainly because it was someone out to get Playstation

DarthRevan19 wrote:its terrible because you can never find a game on their servers, their safety is terrible becasue they got hacked and everyone credit card numbers were showed on the internet and a few others theres my proof it is horrible

There is no problem with finding games on the PS3 servers; http://tinyurl.com/bmrz3d8; few others doesn't count as an argument.

The fact people think that the PS3 or 360 are different enough to be worth discussing said differences is ludicrous. The only true differences lay in exclusives, which leads to opinion.

Scott wrote:

DarthRevan19 wrote:its terrible because you can never find a game on their servers, their safety is terrible becasue they got hacked and everyone credit card numbers were showed on the internet and a few others theres my proof it is horrible

There is no problem with finding games on the PS3 servers; http://tinyurl.com/bmrz3d8; few others doesn't count as an argument.

The fact people think that the PS3 or 360 are different enough to be worth discussing said differences is ludicrous. The only true differences lay in exclusives, which leads to opinion.

i guess it comes down to the sells to see which one is better

DarthRevan19 wrote:

Scott wrote:

DarthRevan19 wrote:its terrible because you can never find a game on their servers, their safety is terrible becasue they got hacked and everyone credit card numbers were showed on the internet and a few others theres my proof it is horrible

There is no problem with finding games on the PS3 servers; http://tinyurl.com/bmrz3d8; few others doesn't count as an argument.

The fact people think that the PS3 or 360 are different enough to be worth discussing said differences is ludicrous. The only true differences lay in exclusives, which leads to opinion.

i guess it comes down to the sells to see which one is better

All that would prove is what company has a better market presence.

i think people buy the better item so whoever has more sales then thats the better item. PS. if a xbox 720 or a PS4 gets announced i be very made

DarthRevan19 wrote:i think people buy the better item so whoever has more sales then thats the better item.

That's an utopian economic system. Better quality products don't mean better profits in a direct fashion. Most consumers are nothing more than a simple mind that needs only a small amount of swaying to buy a product.

Sales numbers are really only a metric for how well your product is marketed (in this case). The actual differences are so trivial that sales have no correlation to quality.

I honestly wouldnt care if i had to pay the $50 a yr for xbl and any extra subscription fee for TOR...i just want to play a GOOD Star Wars game on the console for once...i'm not a pc gamer at all really besides plaing EAW a while back when it came out....might sound a little pathetic that id pay so much just to play a game but thats just how bad i'd want it lol

DarthRevan19 wrote:i think people buy the better item so whoever has more sales then thats the better item. PS. if a xbox 720 or a PS4 gets announced i be very made

Scott's right. Sales don't always equal better quality. Was The Phantom Menace a better movie than The Dark Knight? It made more money. It also had the benefit of being the first actual Star Wars movie made in 16 years with all the hype leading up to it because people didn't know how bad it was going to be.

RogueStarkiller wrote:

DarthRevan19 wrote:i think people buy the better item so whoever has more sales then thats the better item. PS. if a xbox 720 or a PS4 gets announced i be very made

Scott's right. Sales don't always equal better quality. Was The Phantom Menace a better movie than The Dark Knight? It made more money. It also had the benefit of being the first actual Star Wars movie made in 16 years with all the hype leading up to it because people didn't know how bad it was going to be.

the phantom menace wasnt bad, people just didnt understand it

DarthRevan19 wrote:

RogueStarkiller wrote:

DarthRevan19 wrote:i think people buy the better item so whoever has more sales then thats the better item. PS. if a xbox 720 or a PS4 gets announced i be very made

Scott's right. Sales don't always equal better quality. Was The Phantom Menace a better movie than The Dark Knight? It made more money. It also had the benefit of being the first actual Star Wars movie made in 16 years with all the hype leading up to it because people didn't know how bad it was going to be.

the phantom menace wasnt bad, people just didnt understand it

I think it was one of the least subtle films of all time, but I'm interested in how you feel it was misunderstood.

People didn't understand it because it didn't make any damned sense. Not unless you bought all of the tie-in videogames and comics and books. Which is a horrible way to market a film.

Either way, better sales do not always equal a better product. This largely depends on what your personal definition of 'better' is. The Nintendo Wii stomped both the 360 and PS3 in terms of sales, but its hardware is clearly inferior to them. The hardware for all 3 of these consoles is vastly inferior to the PC, which as a whole generates significantly less game sales than consoles do.

I attribute better sales (at least in terms of electronics) with what happens to be the most cost-effective solution to the majority of consumers; not necessarily the 'best' choice, which is entirely down to personal preference.

People didnt understand it because: 1. they ask why Jar Jar is in it? Jar Jar is in it because he serves a the comedic character just like 3P0 did in the original triogoly. 2. People ask why is Anakin a little young boy? He's a little young boy when he is discovered as the chosen one, not as a late teens. and stuff like that. Also Kelvera it sounds like your supporting the PC

DarthRevan19 wrote:People didnt understand it because: 1. they ask why Jar Jar is in it? Jar Jar is in it because he serves a the comedic character just like 3P0 did in the original triogoly. 2. People ask why is Anakin a little young boy? He's a little young boy when he is discovered as the chosen one, not as a late teens. and stuff like that. Also Kelvera it sounds like your supporting the PC

People wondered why JarJar was in the movie because he was nothing more than a plot device to interest kids. C3PO's humour was small and short. Star Wars isn't a comedy and it obviously never was going to be if JarJar was the best they could come up with.

I don't believe anyone asked why Anakin was a young buy. It made sense for the plot. The actor wasn't very good though.