He was aded to the filter long ago, for his crying...

Hmm, I added you to my dickhead filter a while back but your comment still got through. I haven't blocked douchebags so that may explain it.

Well, your comments made previously make you sound just as such....

Responding to hyperbole with facts is not being a fanboy. I admit being a fan of the system but being a fanboy requires statements like -

• So the PS3 has gotten 3 good exclusive games in how many years?
• a mandatory install
• Online that is still a clusterbleep to navigate through
• ALL MIGHTY CONSOLE OF THIS GENERATION THAT IS WORTH YOU HAVING TWO JOBS TO OWN!
• the PS3 IS STILL LACKING IN QUALITY GAMES

are ALL examples of fanboy mentality.

Then you come along and the the best you can do is point fingers at me. So yeah, thanks for the insightful comments.

This comment was edited on Mar 11, 2009, 21:29.

Wow, that's so deep. Thanks for contributing.

So the PS3 has gotten 3 good exclusive games in how many years?

Uncharted, MGS4, Killzone 2, Resistance 1 & 2, LittleBigPlanet, Warhawk, Ratchet and Clank... If you'd take your fanboy glasses off for even a second you'd see how absurd your "3 good exclusives" statement is. But I know you won't.

That's great if you enjoy a mandatory install

Installs are not mandatory, they are at the discretion of the developer. And I'm sure if they could be assured that every 360 had a hard drive (which they can't) you'd see more developers installing to hard disk on that platform as well. Plus, HDDs are cheap on the PS3 so upgrading if needed is not an issue. Can you say the same thing about the 360 with it's proprietary (i.e. expensive) hard drive? Of course you can't.

textures that still look worse then other consoles (the 360)

The differences you are referring to are minimal at best and typically only noticed by those obsessed enough to view upclose, side by side screen captures. The truth is, you'd be hard pressed to spot any significant differences when actually playing the game. That being said, the best looking PS3 games are easily better looking than the best looking 360 games.

Free Online that is still a clusterbleep to navigate through to find demo's/content/dlc for your games

Uninformed, fanboy bullshit which doesn't even deserve a response. But feel free to continue and justify to yourself how Live is worth $50 every single year, which takes me to...

ALL MIGHTY CONSOLE OF THIS GENERATION THAT IS WORTH YOU HAVING TWO JOBS TO OWN!

Get real. Maybe when you've moved up from paperboy or whatever it is you do where $350 requires "TWO JOBS" you'll see that it's really not that expensive especially when you consider what you are getting... Blu-ray player, built-in wireless, and perhaps most importantly, build quality.

As for it being 2007, the PS3 IS STILL LACKING IN QUALITY GAMES, hell not even exclusives but games that are also on the other systems.

Spoken like a true fanboy.

This comment was edited on Mar 11, 2009, 13:47.

That definitely reeks of desperation. I'm sure Microsoft fully understands that the PS3 is not the "dead" platform that so many fanboys would try to have you believe. And with impressive exclusives such as the newly-released "Killzone 2" and another rumored price cut on the horizon, they need to try and find a new angle if they expect to maintain their current market standing over Sony for much longer. It's a bit 2007 to still try and claim that the PS3 is lacking in quality games.

People are keeping their old TVs because they still work.

That's fine but, when faced with needing to purchase a new TV, why would anyone buy an SD set? The industry as a whole is moving to HD and the prices are reasonable now.

HDTV - 1%
Blu-ray - 7.75%

I see a small problem...

Who is still buying SD sets at this point? It's not like when big screen HD sets first came out and were costing upwards of 6 to 8 grand. You can go HD for well under a $1000 now.

This comment was edited on Jan 14, 2009, 18:05.

When I buy an Xbox 360 game and want to play it online, it just works. That's it. I know that I get an excellent online experience for about 35 EUR / year... Coupled with the new install-to-hd feature, for me, the xbox has no competition.

When I buy a PS3 game and want to play it online, it just works. That's it. I know that I get an excellent online experience for free.

Home is the epitome of Sony thinking. "We will build and they will buy it"

Interesting, considering the fact that Home is free.

its pretty damn clear Sony's console is at the bottom of the console heap

According to this article - http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2009/01/microsoft-xbox.html - Microsoft has sold around 28 million 360s and Sony has sold around 20 million PS3s. Considering the 1 year head start Microsoft had and the fact that the PS3 costs more, I don't think an 8 million unit difference is all that significant. It certainly doesn't indicate to me that the PS3 is on life support and that developers are preparing to abandon it any time soon. The fact is any serious developer would see the potential money to be made in releasing games for the PS3. You don't need to be in first, or even second place in order to be viable.

the future of blu-ray is "fuzzy" because folks aren't buying the retail blu-ray movies in great numbers

This is true and is an unfortunate side-effect of retailers trying to sell Blu-rays at $25 - $35 per title. They are the one's effectively killing the format with their greed. What I don't think they realize is that, as an owner of a Blu-ray player, I've pretty much stopped buying ALL movies be they Blu-ray or DVD. I used to buy DVDs with great frequency but now I hold out for the hi-def versions but won't buy until I can find it at traditional DVD prices ($20 and under). And I, like many others, am not interested in digital downloads. I prefer physical media for my money spent.

I'm hoping that sometime soon, these geniuses that are setting the retail prices will get a clue and realize they need to bring Blu-ray prices down. In the meantime, as I stated previously, you can at least get good deals at various online outlets like Amazon.com.

Christ. I don't like the console you do. It's my opinion. Wrap it through your skulls: the PS3 is completely useless to me, not worth $400, and pretty much a piece of garbage.

Your opinion is garbage. Just my opinion.

This comment was edited on Jan 6, 2009, 17:23.

Expect fewer games for the PS3 this year.

http://ps3.ign.com/index/release.html

I count over 200 releases scheduled for 2009. I don't think PS3 owners are worried.

Does none of it well? You are sadly misinformed.

Not for my uses. It's third-ran for gaming. Blu-Ray is overpriced and going to fade in the face of digital delivery. What else are we saying it does?

We're not talking about what's good for your uses. You stated the PS3 does nothing well which is absolute bullshit.

"Third-ran" for gaming? In sales perhaps, but not in quality of games. PS3 has just about all of the same AAA titles as the 360 plus some AAA exclusives of it's own. Now, you may not enjoy games like Uncharted, MGS4, Ratchet and Clank, etc., but you would be hard pressed to convince the gaming community that these titles are "third-ran" in quality.

The price of Blu-ray? Thanks to Amazon and the frequent buy-1-get-1-free type deals, my Blu-ray purchases are consistently below $20 per title which is exactly where DVD was in it's prime. If it wasn't too expensive for DVD, then it certainly isn't too expensive for Blu-ray.

Digital delivery? Well, PS3 does that too (in HD) but I, like many others, prefer and will be using physical media for a long time to come. So long as Blu-ray prices continue to drop, it will be around for quite some time.

What else are we saying it does?

Why don't you tell us all of the things that it does not do well? And keep in mind, your lack of interest in a particular feature or game does not count as "not doing something well".

This comment was edited on Jan 6, 2009, 09:03.

Yes, the PS3 does a lot in one box. But it does none of it well.

Does none of it well? You are sadly misinformed.

what does it really do so much better that it's worth upgrading to?

It's not worth upgrading to from XP but if you are choosing between the two for a new machine I would go with Vista.

they have yet to fix their horrid vista first.

Vista is fine. Quit buying into the negative hype.

This game is undeniably fantastic

I deny that this game is fantastic. In fact, I was bored to death with it within a couple of hours playtime. Ever hear of opinions? Not quite the same thing as facts.

I call bullshit on anyone giving a percentage of the system's "power" that a game uses.

I'm not sure where your skepticism is coming from. As a software developer, I regularly use profiling applications which report in real-time the total % of CPU utilization, the amount of memory being allocated, the number of running threads, etc., giving me a pretty good picture of how efficiently my app is making use of available resources (i.e. the percentage of total "power" being used). Why is it so hard to believe that a professional development house wouldn't be using the same tools? It's a common practice in software development.

In other words, the game should look about twice as impressive on the graphical side of things in the sequel?

As graphics are only one part of the equation, it doesn't necessarily stand to reason that all of the additional resources will be directed at better graphics. The extra processing can be used for things such as more advanced AI routines or more realistic physics.

This comment was edited on Dec 11, 2008, 18:10.

My brother in law has a PS3 and trying their online stuff was just fucking miserable.

Ever stop to consider that maybe it's your brother-in-law's internet provider that is fucking miserable? I swear, the hyperbole that comes with any discussion of PS3's online service is absolutely ridiculous. The only people I ever hear bitch about it are the one's who aren't using it. There is nothing wrong with PS3's online capabilities. It may lack some bells and whistles compared to Xbox Live but if all you're interested in is being able to get online and play multiplayer, then it does that just fine. I play CoD4, Warhawk, Metal Gear Solid, among others online all the time. I don't lag, I don't get random disconnects or crash out of the game, etc. I'd say it's safe to say that 90% of the people who claim PSN sucks are a) doing something wrong/stupid, b) have shitty internet service, or c) are 360 fanboys perpetrating the misconception that PSN is somehow broken. 360 owners can justify their $50 a year expenditure all they want. But to do so by claiming PSN sucks is flat out false.

This comment was edited on Nov 28, 2008, 16:29.

This game isn't better than COD4, and that is a sad thing (this being COD5 and all). Why you would not use Infinity Ward to develop this game after the SUPERB job they did on COD4 is beyond me.

It certainly isn't any worse, just more of the same. That's fine with me and I'm thoroughly enjoying World at War. Was pleasantly surprised based on my lowered expectations due to this not being developed by IW. Anyone who is a fan of the series will enjoy this one.