Sony Confirms US $399

[Killer360]

Sony has confirmed that they will be releasing a new 40GB PS3 Sku in the United States at the price point of $399, and also announced a price drop for the 80GB PS3 dropping the price from $599 to $499.


http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071018-sony-confirms-400-40gb-ps3-for-the-us-price-drop-for-80gb.html

[Warrior]

By the way, the 40GB PS3 will not have Backwards Compatability. At all.

But hey, if you want a $400 Dust collector sitting on your shelf, be my guest.

[dark_drake]

By the way, the 40GB PS3 will not have Backwards Compatability. At all.

But hey, if you want a $400 Dust collector sitting on your shelf, be my guest.

Do I smell a 360 zealot? I don't think it really matters that it has backwards compatibility or not because the odds are that if a person has a PS3, they've probably got a PS2 lying around. I also fail to see why the PS3 would be just a dust collector. There are a few decent games on it.

As for me, I'm still content with playing last generation's games. Seeing as I can pick up tons of them for 5-10 dollars a pop, I think I'll be playing my Gamecube and Xbox for years to come.

[Warrior]

By the way, the 40GB PS3 will not have Backwards Compatability. At all.

But hey, if you want a $400 Dust collector sitting on your shelf, be my guest.

Do I smell a 360 zealot? I don't think it really matters that it has backwards compatibility or not because the odds are that if a person has a PS3, they've probably got a PS2 lying around. I also fail to see why the PS3 would be just a dust collector. There are a few decent games on it.

As for me, I'm still content with playing last generation's games. Seeing as I can pick up tons of them for 5-10 dollars a pop, I think I'll be playing my Gamecube and Xbox for years to come.

You see a PS3 hater. I don't own a 360, so it's hard to label me a 360 Zealot.

The problem is that the customer is getting screwed. Early adopters got full PS2 backwards compatability, since the PS3 literally had a PS2 inside of it.
Later adopters got a software emulation solution (Started with Europe, spread to the States in later revisions of the 80GB and the 40GB).

Now the 40GB is going to remove the backwards compatability completely? Their suggestion is "buy both consoles"? Are you fucking kidding me? If I'm laying down $400 for a PS3 it better damn sure play the library where it has the most games.

This is probably comparable with later revisions of the iPhone shipping without the "Phone" part, and Apple recommending you get another phone to supplement your iPhone. It's stupid, and it's robbing the consumer of his money.

Now, since you wanted to bring up the concept of games I'll dance with you on this.

The PS3 has little or no games worth playing. Period.

Any games that may be worth playing are either XBox 360 Ports, or not even PS3 exclusives. Take for example Madden 07 which runs at a horrible 30 Frames per Second on the PS3 as opposed to 60 Frames per Second on a Xbox 360. Is this because the 360 is superior? No. It's because no one cares enough about the PS3, it's complex programming architecture, and it's poor development SDKs to allocate budgets to making a native game.

The only games that are not ports are coming from either SCEA or it's subsidiaries (Square Enix and the like).

The PS3 Online feature is useless, it's not connecting to a central server so there is no interconnection between games. Once you're playing Online for a certain game you're isolated from other potential players who are playing different games.

Now let's compare it to XBox Live, who's thiriving ecosystem (GamerTags) allow you to invite people from across games, chat with people over Messenger, and maintain an online friends list. Where is this functionality in the PS3? The supposed "Benz" of the Gaming Consoles?

This isn't a console for the upper crust of the gaming world, this is a console for absolute morons who have nothing better to do with their money than waste it on a company which embraces embedding Root Kits in their DRM Solutions. The company who's had practically every propriatary media format they've pushed fail, the company who's literally destroyed any potential interest in the PSP through their obsessive control with their firmware.

Let's look passed the shiny finish on the PS3, look passed the shitty Blu-Ray which will go the way of BetaMax, and look at the facts.

The PS3 is garbage, Sony is a garbage company who pushes out sub-par and almost knock-off quality products, and a company who has shown their arrogance (PS3 is a computer!!!11).

[dark_drake]

You see a PS3 hater. I don't own a 360, so it's hard to label me a 360 Zealot.

I'm pretty much indifferent to all the consoles in this current generation because I don't see any one being hugely better than the others. I do own a 360, but it doesn't see much playtime due to serious lack of games that interest me, but that's going to change next month. Mass Effect >*

The problem is that the customer is getting screwed. Early adopters got full PS2 backwards compatability, since the PS3 literally had a PS2 inside of it.
Later adopters got a software emulation solution (Started with Europe, spread to the States in later revisions of the 80GB and the 40GB).

Now the 40GB is going to remove the backwards compatability completely? Their suggestion is "buy both consoles"? Are you fucking kidding me? If I'm laying down $400 for a PS3 it better damn sure play the library where it has the most games.

I'm going to start off by saying that the PS3 is not a PS2. Yes, it was completely backwards compatible at first, but things have changed (not sure why). Also, the people buying the 40gb PS3 are paying $200 less than the early adopters. That hardly qualifies as being screwed. Furthermore, the xbox 360 requires the hard drive to be backwards compatible. People laying down $300 for the core didn't get backwards compatibility, but I don't think they were screwed. They bought an Xbox 360, not an original xbox.

This is probably comparable with later revisions of the iPhone shipping without the "Phone" part, and Apple recommending you get another phone to supplement your iPhone. It's stupid, and it's robbing the consumer of his money.

This example is dreadful. The PS3 was made to be a PS3; it's still a PS3 without backwards compatibility. The iPhone was made to be a cell phone; without this function, it can no longer perform the purpose it was built for.

I think a better analogy would be the phase out of floppy disks. People still had games on them, but suddenly, they had to buy a separate product to use them (i.e. a usb floppy drive). This analogy doesn't work too well due to cost disparity.

Now, since you wanted to bring up the concept of games I'll dance with you on this.

The PS3 has little or no games worth playing. Period.

Any games that may be worth playing are either XBox 360 Ports, or not even PS3 exclusives. Take for example Madden 07 which runs at a horrible 30 Frames per Second on the PS3 as opposed to 60 Frames per Second on a Xbox 360. Is this because the 360 is superior? No. It's because no one cares enough about the PS3, it's complex programming architecture, and it's poor development SDKs to allocate budgets to making a native game.

The only games that are not ports are coming from either SCEA or it's subsidiaries (Square Enix and the like).

I'm thinking I brought games up when I said there were a few decent games on it, which there are. You're right that there aren't too many exclusives, but exclusives are becoming increasingly uncommon in today's gaming market; development costs have sky-rocketed, and the best way to offset them is to sell to the largest audience possible. Also, most of the 360's exclusives are coming from Microsoft and it's subsidiaries, meaning that part of your argument sucks.

The ports are really hit or miss, as they were last generation. If the company is good, the ports will be about equal in performance. With Madden, I'm going to just chalk that up to EA sucking.

There may not be many, but there are a few games worth playing on the PS3. The ones I can think of are Ninja Gaiden Sigma, Oblivion, and maybe Resistance. I only played Ninja Gaiden Black and Oblivion; both were amazing, so there's no reason to think they'd be bad on the PS3. I haven't played Resistance, but friends have told me it was good.

The PS3 Online feature is useless, it's not connecting to a central server so there is no interconnection between games. Once you're playing Online for a certain game you're isolated from other potential players who are playing different games.

Now let's compare it to XBox Live, who's thiriving ecosystem (GamerTags) allow you to invite people from across games, chat with people over Messenger, and maintain an online friends list. Where is this functionality in the PS3? The supposed "Benz" of the Gaming Consoles?

I don't play online, so I'm not about to say much about this; I tried it on Xbox Live for a bit, and my experience was poor, at best.  You do neglect one important thing, and that is cost. Microsoft charges people for online play; it's free with Sony. What is most surprising to me is the fact that Sony hosts servers for gamers to play on; as far as I know, xbox live is peer-to-peer.

This isn't a console for the upper crust of the gaming world, this is a console for absolute morons who have nothing better to do with their money than waste it on a company which embraces embedding Root Kits in their DRM Solutions. The company who's had practically every propriatary media format they've pushed fail, the company who's literally destroyed any potential interest in the PSP through their obsessive control with their firmware.

Let's look passed the shiny finish on the PS3, look passed the shitty Blu-Ray which will go the way of BetaMax, and look at the facts.

The PS3 is garbage, Sony is a garbage company who pushes out sub-par and almost knock-off quality products, and a company who has shown their arrogance (PS3 is a computer!!!11).

Ugh... every gaming company has screwed up. Microsoft was arrogant enough to believe that their superior hardware in the original Xbox would automatically beat the PS2. Nintendo went with cartridges in the N64 era. Sega's chosen format for the Dreamcast allowed people to easily pirate games. Each time, though, it took a few years to see where a console would end up. As it's only been about a year with the PS3, I'm not about to count it out. If the systems don't start moving with Final Fantasy, Metal Gear Solid 4, Unreal Tournament 3, and any other high profile games are out, then Sony will have lost.

Let's look past our bias against certain companies and realize they're not totally evil. In fact, Sony is a great electronics manufacturer if you ask me.

[Warrior]

I'm going to start off by saying that the PS3 is not a PS2. Yes, it was completely backwards compatible at first, but things have changed (not sure why). Also, the people buying the 40gb PS3 are paying $200 less than the early adopters. That hardly qualifies as being screwed. Furthermore, the xbox 360 requires the hard drive to be backwards compatible. People laying down $300 for the core didn't get backwards compatibility, but I don't think they were screwed. They bought an Xbox 360, not an original xbox.

The PS3 was pitched as the "all in one" gaming platform, it was lauded for it's backwards compatability. Whatever sales it managed to scruff up in a years time was because of this. The PS2 has a huge array of great games, HUGE. They desperately needed Backwards compat to keep people interested until games worth playing came out.

Guess what? No games worth playing came out, and now they lost Backwards Compatability. Who the hell would buy a PS3 now? What are you going to do, play Resistance 24/7?

This example is dreadful. The PS3 was made to be a PS3; it's still a PS3 without backwards compatibility. The iPhone was made to be a cell phone; without this function, it can no longer perform the purpose it was built for.

I think a better analogy would be the phase out of floppy disks. People still had games on them, but suddenly, they had to buy a separate product to use them (i.e. a usb floppy drive). This analogy doesn't work too well due to cost disparity.

You're underminding the initial aim of the PS3. It WAS advertised with FULL backwards compatability, it was one of it's selling points. Maybe they should pull the Blu-Ray drive next and tell people to lay down a few hundred for that crap of a format too?

It's a stupid move, one that screws over people who were possibly looking into a PS3. Read the comments from the articles where it was announced, this is not going to encourage PS3 sales. It's going to encourage 360 sales.

I'm thinking I brought games up when I said there were a few decent games on it, which there are. You're right that there aren't too many exclusives, but exclusives are becoming increasingly uncommon in today's gaming market; development costs have sky-rocketed, and the best way to offset them is to sell to the largest audience possible. Also, most of the 360's exclusives are coming from Microsoft and it's subsidiaries, meaning that part of your argument sucks.

I fail to see how a library of 300+ Games, of which maybe 15 are availible on the PS3 is a "subsidiary of Microsoft" or Microsoft themselves.
Only two important ones are Halo 3 and Gears of War, and maybe PGR.

I mean, if you can list more then by all means. It's easy to list them with the PS3, since the brick of a console has so little games. The problem with Sony is that they over promise and under-achieve.

The ports are really hit or miss, as they were last generation. If the company is good, the ports will be about equal in performance. With Madden, I'm going to just chalk that up to EA sucking.

All ports are hit-or-miss, this is why you discourage ports from your console. Don't look at the issue of "EA sucking", why did they choose to develop PRIMARILY on the 360? Why is id technology, creators of Doom, choosing to work primarily on the 360? Why is Grand Theft Auto IV getting a timed XBox 360 exclusive? Devil May Cry? Assasins Creed?

There may not be many, but there are a few games worth playing on the PS3. The ones I can think of are Ninja Gaiden Sigma, Oblivion, and maybe Resistance. I only played Ninja Gaiden Black and Oblivion; both were amazing, so there's no reason to think they'd be bad on the PS3. I haven't played Resistance, but friends have told me it was good.

So you can think of two games (One of which is on the 360), and a game you have not played yet? How much did you pay for your brick?

I don't play online, so I'm not about to say much about this; I tried it on Xbox Live for a bit, and my experience was poor, at best.  You do neglect one important thing, and that is cost. Microsoft charges people for online play; it's free with Sony. What is most surprising to me is the fact that Sony hosts servers for gamers to play on; as far as I know, xbox live is peer-to-peer.

XBox Live offers two Tiers of service. Silver and Gold. Free and Subscription based. Even the subscription is like $60 a year. The fun you have playing with your friends highly offsets the cost.

Ugh... every gaming company has screwed up. Microsoft was arrogant enough to believe that their superior hardware in the original Xbox would automatically beat the PS2.

Microsoft was humble entering the First Gen. They did not have a brand established. What they WERE sure of, was that the XBox had the most superior graphics at the time. I attribute the short comings of the first XBox to a lack of XBox Live, and a lack of a decent launch title.

Now let's look at today. Sony has a .. lack of any even remotely interesting online service/content, and it had a shiteous collection of launch titles.

But wait, they can still claim graphical superiorty right? No. The most they'd gain is marginal improvements over the 360's graphical quality if anyone even cared enough to devote money to developing for it.

Nintendo went with cartridges in the N64 era. Sega's chosen format for the Dreamcast allowed people to easily pirate games. Each time, though, it took a few years to see where a console would end up. As it's only been about a year with the PS3, I'm not about to count it out. If the systems don't start moving with Final Fantasy, Metal Gear Solid 4, Unreal Tournament 3, and any other high profile games are out, then Sony will have lost.

When's MGS4 coming out again? It's been pushed back like four times. Seriously. Final Fantasy? Seems a lot of people are upset with the direction of the game these days, but perhaps if that subsidiary of Sony can push out a decent games people can dust off their PS3s.

UT3? As much as I think Epic has their head too far up their as, I believe this will move units only due to it's high profile. Their support for the Unreal Engine 3 is abyssmal, there have been complaints by licensees of the Engine due to critical bugs and performance issues remaining unfixed. I wouldn't trust them as far as I can throw them, but from the way UE3's looking it may very well turn things around slightly.

I still think it's a sad state, when you rely on cutting costs and cutting features to sell consoles. The games sell the console, it's supposed to pay off in the users mind. I'm sure PS3 owners once they think about it are pretty puzzled as to why they laid down the money on this console.

Backwards Compatability with HD Upscaling was the last thing the PS3 has left. Removing it was the nail in the coffin.

Let's look past our bias against certain companies and realize they're not totally evil. In fact, Sony is a great electronics manufacturer if you ask me.

[dark_drake]

The PS3 was pitched as the "all in one" gaming platform, it was lauded for it's backwards compatability. Whatever sales it managed to scruff up in a years time was because of this. The PS2 has a huge array of great games, HUGE. They desperately needed Backwards compat to keep people interested until games worth playing came out.

Guess what? No games worth playing came out, and now they lost Backwards Compatability. Who the hell would buy a PS3 now? What are you going to do, play Resistance 24/7?

Guess what? Things have changed since the release of the system.

You're underminding the initial aim of the PS3. It WAS advertised with FULL backwards compatability, it was one of it's selling points. Maybe they should pull the Blu-Ray drive next and tell people to lay down a few hundred for that crap of a format too?

It's a stupid move, one that screws over people who were possibly looking into a PS3. Read the comments from the articles where it was announced, this is not going to encourage PS3 sales. It's going to encourage 360 sales.

How does having a cheaper console possibly encourage the sale of another one? People are not buying the PS3 just for PS2 backwards compatibility.

I fail to see how a library of 300+ Games, of which maybe 15 are availible on the PS3 is a "subsidiary of Microsoft" or Microsoft themselves.
Only two important ones are Halo 3 and Gears of War, and maybe PGR.

I mean, if you can list more then by all means. It's easy to list them with the PS3, since the brick of a console has so little games. The problem with Sony is that they over promise and under-achieve.

Ugh... look again. For the love of God, look again at all the multi-platform games.

All ports are hit-or-miss, this is why you discourage ports from your console. Don't look at the issue of "EA sucking", why did they choose to develop PRIMARILY on the 360? Why is id technology, creators of Doom, choosing to work primarily on the 360? Why is Grand Theft Auto IV getting a timed XBox 360 exclusive? Devil May Cry? Assasins Creed?

I have no idea what you're talking about with Grand Theft Auto IV, Devil May Cry, or Assassin's Creed, so you need to look up on that; as far as I know ,the release dates are either the same, or very, very close. And what games does id Technology have in development? The only one I came up with was Rage, and it's announced for all platforms.

So you can think of two games (One of which is on the 360), and a game you have not played yet? How much did you pay for your brick?

I don't have a PS3. I just don't see the point of someone hating it.

XBox Live offers two Tiers of service. Silver and Gold. Free and Subscription based. Even the subscription is like $60 a year. The fun you have playing with your friends highly offsets the cost.

I know what they are; it's still peer-to-peer, and you have to pay to do that. You need gold to play online with friends, with maybe the exception of arcade games.

Microsoft was humble entering the First Gen. They did not have a brand established. What they WERE sure of, was that the XBox had the most superior graphics at the time. I attribute the short comings of the first XBox to a lack of XBox Live, and a lack of a decent launch title.

Now let's look at today. Sony has a .. lack of any even remotely interesting online service/content, and it had a shiteous collection of launch titles.

But wait, they can still claim graphical superiorty right? No. The most they'd gain is marginal improvements over the 360's graphical quality if anyone even cared enough to devote money to developing for it.

All consoles had lackluster launch titles.

And I think you're next point is a major reason this price cut is needed. People weren't seeing this massive jump in graphical performance they would expect out of a $600 machine, so if it's within price range, they're just going to expect similar performance.

When's MGS4 coming out again? It's been pushed back like four times. Seriously. Final Fantasy? Seems a lot of people are upset with the direction of the game these days, but perhaps if that subsidiary of Sony can push out a decent games people can dust off their PS3s.

UT3? As much as I think Epic has their head too far up their as, I believe this will move units only due to it's high profile. Their support for the Unreal Engine 3 is abyssmal, there have been complaints by licensees of the Engine due to critical bugs and performance issues remaining unfixed. I wouldn't trust them as far as I can throw them, but from the way UE3's looking it may very well turn things around slightly.

I still think it's a sad state, when you rely on cutting costs and cutting features to sell consoles. The games sell the console, it's supposed to pay off in the users mind. I'm sure PS3 owners once they think about it are pretty puzzled as to why they laid down the money on this console.

Backwards Compatability with HD Upscaling was the last thing the PS3 has left. Removing it was the nail in the coffin.

I'm going to go ahead and ask you to check on Square Enix being a subsidiary of Sony. They're not. I think Sony owns like 10% of their stock. Also, I'm going with a rough quotation of Nintendo for MGS4: Gamers will forgive a late game, but they'll never forget a bad game.

I'm very aware of the problems with Epic, but the fact remains they have one hell of a design team when it comes down to it.

I fail to see why cutting costs is a bad way to sell consoles. Sony is getting a few more games this holiday season; their goal was to put it in the range of the 360, and maybe the Wii.

[Hitmen]

It's best to just ignore warrior's posts whenever anything remotely related to microsoft is mentioned, it makes the forums a better place for everyone.

[rabbit]

I love Sony.  They have a lot of great stuff.  The PS2 and PSP were great, though Sony's ardent anti-homebrew crusade is pissing me off.  I love most of the games on Sony's consoles, even if I uh.....don't exactly buy them all......  They have great quality products and some great features.


That said, I bought a 360 before a PS3, and I doubt I ever will buy a PS3.

[Sidoh]

It's best to just ignore warrior's posts whenever anything remotely related to microsoft is mentioned, it makes the forums a better place for everyone.

lol, so true.  Sorry Warrior.  Even if some of your points are legitimate, you're so biased that it doesn't matter!

[Warrior]

Guess what? Things have changed since the release of the system.

Exactly what has changed? Besides feature cuts?

How does having a cheaper console possibly encourage the sale of another one? People are not buying the PS3 just for PS2 backwards compatibility.

What else are they buying it for? The sub 50 selection of games? Maybe they like the light hits the black finish.

Ugh... look again. For the love of God, look again at all the multi-platform games.

It's hard to know what you're getting at if you don't explicitly cite what you mean. Let's see it.

I have no idea what you're talking about with Grand Theft Auto IV, Devil May Cry, or Assassin's Creed, so you need to look up on that; as far as I know ,the release dates are either the same, or very, very close. And what games does id Technology have in development? The only one I came up with was Rage, and it's announced for all platforms.

GTA IV will haved timed XBox 360 exclusive content, Devil May Cry lost it's intial PS3 exclusivity, and so did Assasins Creed. Why waste more money on a console, when I can get a 360 (with better performance due to developer interest, the XNA Framework, Xbox Live, et all)? What is the driving force behind PS3 sales? What makes me want to go out and buy one?

id Software does not solely develop in-house games, it also co-develops or guides other projects using it's id Tech 4 Engine (Quake, Doom, etc.) and it's next id Tech 5 Engine. It's primarily coded on guess what? The Xbox 360.

John Carmack himself has stated t he 360 is superior to the PS3 in terms of development. John Carmack, a 3D Programming pioneer. Author of famous algorithms which revolutionized gaming. That guy.

I don't have a PS3. I just don't see the point of someone hating it.

I've clearly stated my reasons for disliking it, and sony. I'm not exempting Microsoft from blame.
I do blame them for again, the lack of Backwards Compatability, the Red Ring of Death issues, and how poorly it's being addressed.

The difference is, the 360 has a library of games to fall back on. If the PS3 loses backwards compatability, what the hell are people going to do?
Like I said, there is only so many times you can beat Resistance.

All consoles had lackluster launch titles.

And I think you're next point is a major reason this price cut is needed. People weren't seeing this massive jump in graphical performance they would expect out of a $600 machine, so if it's within price range, they're just going to expect similar performance.

All this and it's still as expensive as a high-end 360 SKU. There is a difference between the launch titles, and how fast new games appear. What worthwhile has come out of the PS3 camp since launch?

Lair? Flop.
Heavenly Sword? Perhaps.
Metal Gear Solid? MIA.

I'm going to go ahead and ask you to check on Square Enix being a subsidiary of Sony. They're not. I think Sony owns like 10% of their stock. Also, I'm going with a rough quotation of Nintendo for MGS4: Gamers will forgive a late game, but they'll never forget a bad game.

So you don't think Sony's most fledging success, the reason that there is a sliver of relevance in the playstation brand is not backed by Sony? Hell, SCEA is even credited for the in-house development guides.

It's similiar to Microsoft aiding the Games it finds neat and then advertising. The difference is, games not made or funded by Microsoft still appear and are still successful.

I'm very aware of the problems with Epic, but the fact remains they have one hell of a design team when it comes down to it.

I fail to see why cutting costs is a bad way to sell consoles. Sony is getting a few more games this holiday season; their goal was to put it in the range of the 360, and maybe the Wii.

They're not just cutting costs. They're cutting costs and they're cutting features.
I fail to see how $399 is in the "price range" of a Wii. That's about $160 more than the Wii.

What does the Wii have? The most insane backwards compatability ever brought to a gaming console.
What does the Xbox 360 have? Software emulation backwards compatability, while shaky at times it's better than nothing.
What does the PS3 have? Jack shit.

It's the facts, you can try to twist them as much as you want but at the end of the day they remain the same.
There is no justified reason to get a PS3.

[Warrior]

It's best to just ignore warrior's posts whenever anything remotely related to microsoft is mentioned, it makes the forums a better place for everyone.

Pretty sure this stems from your (failed) argument against me? Too lazy to look up exactly what you failed at, but it was probably significant =).

Might I suggest going the way of dark_drake and arguing against me? I mean, I can just as easily warn people to be cautious of all of your posts, but it would be as unfounded as your claim.

[Warrior]

It's best to just ignore warrior's posts whenever anything remotely related to microsoft is mentioned, it makes the forums a better place for everyone.

lol, so true.  Sorry Warrior.  Even if some of your points are legitimate, you're so biased that it doesn't matter!

It's often hard to leave bias out of an argument, this is why you never take anything anyone says in an argument straight up. Take it with grains of salt.

Then again, I'm not pro Microsoft here. I'm anti-sony.

It'd be just as easy to argue a point for the Wii, but I think it's obvious of the Wii's advantages/disadvantages. I thought I'd put a different spin on it.

[Hitmen]

It's best to just ignore warrior's posts whenever anything remotely related to microsoft is mentioned, it makes the forums a better place for everyone.

Pretty sure this stems from your (failed) argument against me? Too lazy to look up exactly what you failed at, but it was probably significant =).

I don't remember arguing with you, but mkay. It is quite possible.

[Warrior]

It's best to just ignore warrior's posts whenever anything remotely related to microsoft is mentioned, it makes the forums a better place for everyone.

Pretty sure this stems from your (failed) argument against me? Too lazy to look up exactly what you failed at, but it was probably significant =).

I don't remember arguing with you, but mkay. It is quite possible.

Then what are you trying to prove with your comment?

How about reading the arguments for content before making assumptions. Helps a bit.