So Im guessing you mean playstation or gameboy by "system"? because those are the only ones that can play older systems games.

RougePix wrote:

$600 price

That's for the "cheap" PS3, isn't it? That is, the one that is missing parts and features so that you can't do everything the system was made for? And I've also heard that you can't upgrade it either; if you want the better one after getting the less expensive one you have to go out and buy an entire nother PS3. And how much is the one that is even more expensive than that? Isn't it seven-hundred-something?

, and a motion sensor that will be avaliable for a select few games. I hardly call that "evil".

I don't see what the presense of a motion sensor that gets little use has to do with your argument of it not being evil.

Although I won't call Sony evil (though I know you were just exaggerating, so I won't go into that), I won't buy anything of Sony's video game products because I feel their presense in the gaming market is bad for the video game industry's health.

To be honest, I never understood what people got so excited about with the Playstation. Especially with the first one. In the console generation of the original one, I wanted the Sega Saturn. It's such a shame Sega got bought out and converted into a non-console-producing company.

Nobody is saying that Xbox Live is great or that PS3's online network will suck, but the fact is that it's nice to spend some money for a really excellent experience playing games online. If you went to a bar and the waiters were slow, the drinks had lag floating in them (yummy), and the music was choppy, but the service was all *free*, would you go? I would suggest hopping to the one accross the street, where for $50 you and your friends can have a really excellent night.

What I'm saying is, in the premium vs free argument with online game providers, it makes sense to me to pay and have a really great time rather than have to "put up" with Sony's free network just because it's free and "good enough" for a bunch of people.

You're still going to have people who'd rather put up with nuances of a free service simply because it's free.

Heck, I see 1300 players online on Byond right now, so... ;)

Yep i'm getting a Ps3.

I'm getting a Wii and Ps3. :|

That's a bogus argument.

You don't even have to point out why it is to see it's clearly wrong, man.
Criticising a free service before anyone's even tried it and trying to show that free things are somehow inherently bad isn't a good way to go. Just look at Nintendo's online service? It's totally free and works fine.

Loduwijk wrote:

Exactly. Loading time, one new gadget per console, insane prices, etc. are the best way to go. These wonderful features are much better than constant changes, adaptations, catering to fans who want to see more storyline for a game (No, releasing the exact same Crash Bandicoot game [I think that was the one] 20 times and just changing the title does not count as new content for plot fans), and predictably stable prices.

Seriously, devout anti-consolism ftl.

Loading times happen to be more influenced by the design of the game (or lack there-of) than the system;

Insane prices happen to most consoles and are controlled more by market demand and console cost than some evil desire to dominate the world.

'constant changes, adaptations, catering to fans who want to see more storyline for a game' ? First of all, the company that produces a console has ZERO, ZILCH to do with the quality of the games.

All console game companies cater to their fans in the degree that its profitable. The fact that some people seem to think that Sony is an evil money-grubbing giant and that Nintendo in contrast isn't is an illusion. Guess what ? ALL of these companies do it for the money. All of them.

That is exactly one of the things I don't like about it. For that price you might as well buy a decent PC and get games that are better than those on any gaming console.

I don't think PC games in general are better; Some games are simply better suited to consoles, IMO. And the atmosphere of sitting with friends around a TV screen is usually different, something that a great deal of console games rely on.

I think its fine to complain over the price of a console as being on the high end; But accusing Sony of being evil, saying other console companies are saints and tailor to their users, bringing in completely game development-related issues and similar simply make me look at threads like this and go, 'Useless'. Relentless slandering of anything you can try and put in a negative scope doesn't do a thing to support an argument amongst anyone who has a clue about this industry.

I agree. I wouldn't go somewhere similar to another place in any aspect if I were not to have a great time. PS3 may be compared as so to Xbox Live, but it's capabilities aren't really known yet, and that statement may not actually apply.

I would still rather have a PS3. It's fully backwards compatible (unlike teh 360, which is really homosexual) and I love the titles exclusive to it, such as Medal of Honor (that is still only for the PS, right? European Assault doesn't count because it was stupid.)