@ Thrallia
My son played Socom 2 on the PS2 for years even after Socom 3 came out. If a game continues to be played online it seems to continue get support. He also had no trouble find his friends to team up with Socom and even played ladders. Now games like last year Madden will lose support when this years version is out but I sure Madden fans will want to play the latest version.
I have no problems playing old game online on my PC either without extra cost. With 360 online gaming is all or nothing. Either you pay or can't play online period including Revolution. Revolution will be one of these few games I will play online every now and again so I'm very thankful I don't have to pay extra every time I'm the mood to play online.
*****
sure, if its a big game, sometimes it will last longer online...but can your son still play socom 2 online? I doubt it. If it had been a game on a MS system, they'd be able to play it online until the death of the console. MechAssault was playable from the launch of XBL until the death of the Xbox. CoD2 will be playable from the launch of the 360 till the death of the 360. That's a longer lifespan than any game will have on either the PS2 or PS3.
I don't know what you meant that the Wii is junk? For it's outdated hardware, it may be a little overpriced but so far the Wii is holding up very well.
I don't see the Wii as overpriced(especially when it is much cheaper than the alternatives), nor do I consider it junk...I was saying that it is 'junk' technologically compared to the PS3(at least, Sony wants you to think that), but I think it is on par with either the 360 or PS3 technologically. And it is more than holding up lol Nintendo has already sold well over 20 million of them, along with having developed 14 games that have sold over 1M copies each. They've made more money already this generation than MS and Sony are likely to make combined over this entire generation.
As you seems to agree with me you have to pay more for the 360 plus online gaming than with the PS3 plus online plus Blu-ray which also upscaled DVD in the long run especially when you minus PS3 BC which also minus heat.
Now if you are a RPG fan you pretty much have no choice but to get a 360. 360 does have more RPG than both ps3/wii put together.
um...360 also upscales DVDs. It also plays games in 1080p, if you have a tv that supports it. And I don't see how no PS2=less heat is a good trade-off. I'd rather put up with the extra 2-3 degrees C and be able to junk my dying PS2. I did agree that if you paid for every possible month of the 360's online over its expected lifetime, the PS3 is cheaper...by a whole 40 bucks. If you were getting into it now however, 3 years=36 months*4 bucks=$144+$350=$494, making it cheaper than the last PS3 version worth buying...and you get a heck of a lot more games, better games, better online support, etc. Not to mention, if you go for the cheapo, pointless 40GB PS3, that extra $94 you spent on your 360 also provides for BC with tons of your xbox games(in addition to the already mentioned better online and more games).
I think Blu-Ray is a waste of time right now anyway...upscaling DVDs looks nearly as good, and costs $50 for a player to do that(or you can use your 360).
I'm sorry, you've lost me there. How would silver being put back to how it used to be have a negative effect on the release of demos, or the quality of games?
I was actually comparing silver to the ps3 online...it has less games and demos, lower quality games, but you get the demos at the same time no matter who you are.
And therein lies my point! They don't brag about it, because there's nothing to brag about. In fact, it must be a big embarrassment to them that even with the millions that signed up for gold when Halo 3 was released, the best they could achieve was approximate parity between silver and gold. Hence, my earlier point about widening the gulf between the two factions, and feeding Sony the ammo. One thing we can be sure of though; if there ever does come a day when gold does exceed silver, Microsoft will be singing about it to anyone who'll listen!
It doesn't matter whether the ratio is 1:1, 2:1, or 1:2(or bigger in either direction), XBL is a success simply because of the fact that it is so much more expansive, omnipresent, and more widely supported on the 360 than the PSN is for Sony.
Microsoft have been trying to destroy conusmer surplus for decades, i mean come on £200 for vista. Now there doing the same thing with thier xbox market, micro junkies do yourself a favour trade in your xbox and go with a console sold by a decent corporation.
Right...Windows has always cost ~200 for the full operating system. Windows 3.1, 95, 98, 2000, ME, XP all cost the same amount on release as Vista does. How are they destroying consumer surplus by charging the same amount for their OS over a 20 year period? Especially since it is the omnipresent OS, one that is essentially required in order to be compatible with the majority of software/games/etc. They could charge a whole lot more for it if they wanted to(oh, and the reason they charge for Office now, rather than packaging it for free like they did through 95? Not their idea...blame that on Corel et al. that decided to sue MS for 'monopoly' on word processing...now instead of getting it for free, we have to pay for it...that's Corel's fault, not MS)
How is MS 'doing the same thing with their xbox market'? The 360 is cheaper than the PS3! MUCH cheaper! if I recall, it is ~250 in the UK, while the PS3 is ~400.
I'd consider MS a much more 'decent' company than Sony...MS doesn't hold press events in Greece where they sacrifice goats. They don't put up posters in the UK of a white woman holding a black woman by the throat. They don't graffiti the sidewalks and walls of businesses in Los Angeles. They don't blatantly lie to you about why they aren't using rumble technology in their new controllers(and then expect you to continue to believe the previous lie when they change their minds about rumble in their new controllers). They don't outright say that they'd sell 5 million systems even if they never made a decent game for the system(which, btw, they were right about...you just don't say it publicly!). They don't say BC is very important to us, and we are the only company that supports it, then get rid of it completely, saying no one cares about it and if you do you are living in the past. They dont' say when they get rid of BC that the reason is because not enough games for their current system are selling, so they aren't makign enough money off of you.
The idea of buying a PS3 is to play PS3 games.
Really? I thought the idea was to get it as a cheaper Blu-Ray player. Since you know...there's not really any games for it worth spending money on.
The PS3's 80GB is a form of price discrimination. I'll explain this to you, they release a super ps3 with lots of uneeded extras, so they can get maximum price out of consumers, and then release cheaper versions without the thrills for regular customers, and the shoddy versions for the customers who jsut don't have lots of spare funds. Hence getting maximum profits, because they don't cut out the lower spenders, nor do sell low and miss out on profits and the top enbd of the market.
The reason why they have stopped selling the 80GB is because most of the people who would buy an 80GB already have, so to continue production would be quite a big potential f**k up.
you have fallen 100% for Sony's PR...the 80GB PS3 didn't have a 'lot of unneeded extras' it held everything that the original 60GB held...just a bigger hard drive(for the same price as the 60GB was).
Then they release a cheapo 40GB version of the system, toned down(only 2 USB ports, no BC) and cut off $100 off the price...then they get rid of the 80GB quietly, without publicly telling that they no longer support a BC version of their console. If they did, the public would go crazy.
They have no 'low spenders' there are no low spenders this generation so far...oh, and that no frills version? yeah...it can't play a full band in Rock Band...only 2 USB ports means you can play a max of 2 instruments at a time.
As far as profits go...Sony hasn't made any yet...in fact, they are still losing money on every single system they make and sell. Selling systems at a higher price, and still losing money, compared to your competitors is a very bad way of doing business. They've already had to sell off their stake in the Cell processor, their credit card division, and some of their stock in order to stay solvent in the PS3 division...that's over $4 billion that they've lost in a little over a YEAR...they will not make that back this generation...so no matter what else happens, they've lost this time around.
Since it has been..... I sell both consoles at my secondary job, and we sell a lot of both, but it has been trending towards the 360 now that Sony stupidly dropped the only PS3 worth owning for many gamers with PS2's (the 80 GB)! Explain that one to me.
They dropped the 80GB because they lost $250 on each one of those systems they sold. The 40GB only loses them $150-200, so it makes good 'fiscal' sense to drop the one that loses them more money...but in the end it only hurts them, because there are a ton of people who will not buy a 40GB because of lack of BC...me included.
The store I work in sells the systems in the following ratio, Sony:Microsoft:Nintendo format. 1:3:8.
I think that about says it all...even with Blu-Ray winning the next-gen format war, the PS3 is not catching the 360 because of a lack of decent games.
However, I should point out, having been around both systems when they are running...they emit the same amount of noise and heat. Also, if you don't do 'monthly fees'(which XBL isn't necessarily...I pay $50 for 13 months of live whenever I run out, and activate it when I get around to playing online again...thus far, I've actually only paid $50 for a total of 18 months of online), then the 360 is cheaper...but considering your personal opinions in your pro/con list, PS3 is still the system for you.
