personally, I think if ATI and nVidia hadn't gotten greedy and started charging 400-600 bucks for the high end video cards. People wouldn't have gotten turned off by PC and moved over to consoles.

There used to be a time when 200 bucks could net you the best video card in existence in the TNT/TNT2 days even the Voodoo2 add on cards didn't go higher than that I believe.

But at some point, the cost of video cards skyrocketed. And then they tacked on stupid gimmicks like SLI and Quad SLI. People bought right into it too, believing they had to have it or else they'd be missing out, which was total bullshit.

No wonder people got sick of PC gaming.

And to call console gamers stupid? Please...

if they dropped the pc to play fps on a console, then they were never hardcore, they were poseurs at best. but hey, the more casual gamers that drop the pc due to "expense" and "headache", the better. eventually only the true gamers will be left.

anyone else psyched about LOST tonight?

"except for the online multiplayer"

Wouldn't that be a pretty big sticking point?

Wow - I missed out on a nice pissin' match.

As for the games someone mentioned (which have gotten good scores, except Devil May Cry 4 as isn't it not out yet, and also coming out for the 360?), are any of them a reason to purchase a PS3?

Reason I ask is cause I have looked at purchasing a PS3, and the only games that were for me a 'system seller' was Warhawk and Lair. That was before Warhawk became a Multiplayer only game, and after Lair's reviews came in.

And as for my comments about the PS3 being stupid? Honestly you sound like a typical Sony Fanboi you see over in the Gamefaqs.com message boards.

But a fine example of the PS3's flaws is with UT. As mentioned by people on these boards there are framerate issues when compaired to the PC Demo.

Now why would there be any issues at all if Epic claimed that it was easy to program for?

The PS3 has alot of horse power on paper, but actually getting that out of the unit seems to be another issue.

when I'm putting down 500 bucks plus 60 bucks a game I do my homework on what I'm going to get for that money, and long term.

This wasn't even about whats a better system.

This was originally about one person asking about the PS3 and the Blu-Ray playback

so as far as I can tell you're just PS3 fanboys who only reads positive PS3 news.

I don't see anyone here saying it's a suck ass game system other than you.

but as a game console it sucks ass.

Other than Epic with their qualified "praise" everyone else mentions it being a bitch to code for.

If you are getting a BR player and don't get a PS3, I think you are wasting your $$$.

The agency said the show was indecent because "it depicts sexual organs and excretory organs — specifically an adult woman's buttocks."

This whole Blu-Ray thing has really empowered the Sony fanboi crowd.

That's no spin at all, it's the truth

As has also been pointed out, the 360 was supply constrained during much of that time. In its first year, PS3s were gathering dust on shelves.

Here's a mathematical fact: The PS3 doesn't need to reach parity with the 360 in sales, it needs to generate more sales in order to make up for the existing gap in units

This "wait and see" attitude that PS3 cheerleaders like to spout can only last so long.

They want to at least get it out there that their system isn't dead.

It sure as hell wasn't Sony's master plan to be where they are today in terms of PS3 sales.

For someone that needs HD, Blue Ray, bells whistles, and free blow jobs (which you SHOULD get by paying that much for a console), BlueToth (why?), etc etc etc then by all means get a PS3.

Don't discount LIVE as a huge advantage Xbox has over PS3. I don't see Sony rolling out anything that competes with it. Not for free anyway.

I also didn't want to have to deal with the likelihood of hardware issues with the 360.

Yeah but which one? Is the PS3 finally going to show it's alleged extra beef over the 360? Or is it being developed with the 360 in mind and will be a 'port' over to the PS3?