Played the demo got to say I was impressed, fun game.

but now, i actually like these "ps3 bluray doom gloom" articles,
it's hilarious to watch losers getting creative with their denial XD
kinda like watching a fly desperately buzzing for its life, trapped inside your glass... gives me a little sadistic fun everyday on n4g :P

They want shlt fail , especially sony . that way they get a hugh story . But these dumbfks don't realize is that sony is the innovator . just because these dumbkfks can't afford it they want to bash it . If you cant afford sony products go get yourself something else and stop spewing garbage .

read the article. It states that the bd live feature is just a trojan horse to get vod into your home. It's totally true. This is going to be the future, like it or not. You'll still be able to buy bluray of course, but you will have lower resolution options as well, like netflix in "fake" hd. I'm not anti bluray, in fact, I own several of them. This article just point out (albeit with a misleading title) that this is just a stepping stone to "view on demand" for some people.

Some people want Sony to fail because they want the American economy to succeed. I'm not economically intelligent but isn't it true that buying a foreign product sends the money out of the country? I just took an Asian studies class, and my teacher who is American by the way said that the quality of Japanese products started overtaking the quality of American products by about the 1970s. That's just 35 years after we dropped two atom bombs on them and devastated their economy. Gotta hand it to the Japanese. They really are smarter. Anyways, I don't want to see Sony fail, but I do want to see Microsoft be as good as Sony, in terms of quality and customer care and product support.

ZIIIINNNNGGGG.......

First of all 1080p is a video resolution, it has nothing to do with audio.

Second even if i never use those features, someone else might want it, they are trying to give people as many options as they realistically can.

Third the downloaded movies have the lower/lowest grade audio simply to save space, I have never downloaded a video from netflix ect. But i would put it into the 4-8 gigabyte size range.

The reason that dd movies don't use higher lvl audio's is it would take up too much space, br movies use up to 50 gigs. Try downloading a 25 gig file and see if it still sounds theasable as a rental service, if you want quality audio/video.

If your wanting audio/video quality from dd movies, your looking on the wrong format, you want the disc based.

You don't even know the difference between audio and video, and your complaining at people, upset at a bullshit article.

And yes thank you captain obvious, so is everything on everyones hard disks, every game ever made, any other gems of wisdom you wish to enlighten us with?

yea physical media so i can bring it to my friends house...hold on to it and sell it down the road causew it might be worth alot later

you could look at it another way... like the disc based media (blu-ray) is that great it CAN offer other media right beside it and not have to worry! cos as other people have said its just not viable or even possible to get the same quality downloaded at the moment, besides even when it is available there still will be people that like and want physical products (im one of them), the other guy mentioned some of the reasons why, but just to add one say you had a big collection of films on a hdd then spilt water over it or the hdd just failed or something, you would lose all you had collected just like that! ok you could have a fire and lose your blu-rays too. but wouldnt that be covered by insurance? i think you would have a hard time convincing an insurance company you had a grand worth of films on your hdd lmao

"why so serious chatbots???" lmao... and i found something interesting actually, if you check out the hottest games for the ps3 you will notice that 6 are exclusives, 1 (ghostbusters) timed exclusive in europe... i thought hmmm i wonder what the 360 side looks like as i keep hearing they have no games etc, well just take a look! 1 exclusive! and thats halo 3 for god sake! lmao oh and 1 dlc! (fallout 3 dlc), i was really quite shocked to be honest, can it really be that bad on the 360 side?? now i know why they are always on the ps3 articles.

however, that statement is irrelevant to this article.

Ah ah it's irrelevant only because you don't understand that this article (like the 100s of other 'Blueray is doooomed' articles) is written by a 12 or 15 year old American kid who is angry because HDDVD lost and died and he can't use his HDDVD xbox drive anymore.

The article makes no sense otherwise, since Blueray is gaining ground faster than DVD ever did. Last time I checked, DVD was a success. So is Blueray then. It's not 'killing itself' at all according to sales.

1. Did you even bother to read the (hilarious) article?

2. You're spelling bluray wrong...

3. The HD-DVD fanboys were never all that retarded. We got a few trolls over at bluray.com, but not much else.

4. Nobody really gives a sh!t about HD-DVD anymore. Even the old Bluray.com trolls i'm sure have Bluray players and don't care anymore.

5. As much as i agree with you, you're retarded... gtfo.

ps3 is 2 yrs, 5 months old. um 360 had better sell more than ps3 if its cheaper, if it has been out a year longer, if so many people bought red ring replacements, i really hope it wud sell more after that, especially with that 200$ gimmick arcade bundle.

i have all systems and honestly the xbox doesnt shine to me, good games yes, but not many exclusives left, u owned a 360 for 3 yrs, paid 50 each yr for its ok online service, so the 150 was worth it? i refuse to buy gold again after mine expires,

360 charges u for online yet only thing it has better than free psn is ingame voice chat.

no built in wifi, no built in rechargable batteries, no bluray player, no internet browser, it laser burns games, it gets RROD and error e74,100$ for a 60 gig hard drive? compared to a 50$ 300 gig ps3 hard drive? no way of backing up 360 save data? over priced 50$ half gig memory cards lol

im sorry dude but ur gonna have to prove it was worth it since ur ranting.

u like ur xbox? awesome! i like mine too, but guess what people like their ps3's and wii's too so get over ur self, how bout u actually try the ps3 and stop being a fanboy. with ur many leaving exclusives what do u have that ps3 owners dont?

no body wants blu ray? thats why alone from ps3 owners there are over 28 million bluray owners not counting stand alone bluray sets, thats why during the movies at a theatre thats all u see advertised, lol ur full of urself

You severely missed the point of my post. I wasn't provoking some sort of relative comparison between the two consoles. I am simply stating that Blu-ray is doing absolutely awful, and that the majority of movie-watchers as well as game-player don't want it. The only people who seem to think it is worthwhile are people who are in defense of the PS3.

However i will humor you!

"s3 is 2 yrs, 5 months old. um 360 had better sell more than ps3 if its cheaper, if it has been out a year longer"

-This is basic Business 101. Both of the consoles are CHEAP ENOUGH that they target the same exact audience. The base cost of the "arcade" 360 is cheaper than the PS3. But most people do not buy the arcade version. So the fact of the matter is you can buy a 360 pro for about 300$, plus 100$ if you want you want wireless internet. You can buy a PS3 for 400$. Since these both target the same audience, and are in a similar price range. the PRICE of both consoles isn't really a factor. People are going to buy which one they like better.

Second, the fact that the 360 was released a year early does not matter. It is to be assumed that the "inital-fan-base" of both these consoles has already has already bought the console of their choice. Especially now that it has been nearly 3 years since the release of the PS3. This means that everyone who wanted a 360 has bought a 360, and that everyone who wants a PS3 has bought a PS3. This applies to people who genuinely "want" the console. From here on out, all sales are based more on casual gaming/presents/and spontaneity. By trying to say the PS3 came out a year later, and that's why it has sold less, you are implying that every PS3 Fan is INTENTIONALLY waiting a year to buy the console, simply because the 360 came out a year earlier. This is not how sales work.

Think of it like this. 100 people want lemonade and 100 people want ice-tea. The lemonade comes out earlier than the ice-tea. Those 100 people who wanted lemonade will grab a lemonade. Then 10 minutes later when the ice-tea comes out, those 100 people who wanted ice-tea will grab an ice-tea. It is not as if only 50 people will take an ice-tea simply because it came out 10 minutes later. They will not intentionally delay their purchase of ice-tea simply because they had to wait 10 minutes. by the end of the night 100 people will have gotten ice-tea, and 100 people will have gotten lemonade. (don't criticize my example, its not completely realistic, i am just trying to put things in perspective for you).

This is how sales work. There may be some casual buyers who bought the 360 within the first year because they didn't want to wait for the PS3. But this number is miniscule

"have all systems and honestly the xbox doesnt shine to me, good games yes, but not many exclusives left"

-You are pre-supposing that "exclusives" are better than "multiplat" games. This is ridiculous. Exclusiveness does not determine the quality of a game. It does not matter if the 360 has less exclusives. The quality of a game is determined by how much effort was put into it, not by which 'disk tray can read it'.

"aid 50 each yr for its ok online service, so the 150 was worth it? i refuse to buy gold again after mine expires"

- I INTENTIONALLY got my 360 so that i could pay 50$(now 40$)on Xbox-live. I like Xbox-live much better. I purposely pay for it because i want the better online service. This is a choice. Plus it amounts to about 10cents a day. If you cannot afford ten cents a day then maybe you shouldn't have bought all three systems.

"no built in wifi, no built in rechargable batteries, no bluray player, no internet browser, it laser burns games, it gets RROD and error e74,100$ for a 60 gig hard drive? compared to a 50$ 300 gig ps3 hard drive? no way of backing up 360 save data? over priced 50$ half gig memory cards lol"

Yea.... ALL THAT and the 360 is STILL DOING BETTER? does that not tell you something? but you wrong...anyways.
-First things first, my controllers all came with re-chargeable batteries.
-It does not "laser-burn" games. The laser in a DVD player isn't hot enough to burn anything. You must be talking about when the first 360 was released; it would scratch games IF YOU MOVED IT WHILE IT WAS running. Not only has this been fixed, but anyone who moves their 360 around while the disk is spinning is stupid and deserves a scratch.
- as for RRoD and E74, I have not gotten either of these errors. But these have been fixed. The current failure-rate of the 360 is 16% (google it) which is exactly the same as the PS2.

And last but not least. Okay your Hard-drive is a little cheaper, but you completely missed the point of my post. Sony could have made a console 20x better, for the same price as the current PS3. You got jipped. I know 'ps3boys' pretend Blu-ray is amazing, but the general consensus is that blu-ray is not worth it.

@BobbySaget

Wow...your such a...what's the word of the day....a 'tard for going so far off tangent with your comments on the PS3. The article is focused on the blu-ray format compared to HD VOD, not PS3 sales.

When you meant "not selling", would that be the same way how the zunes is being curbed stomped by the ipod in sales? Then again, you could be referring to the 99% of businesses that didn't bother upgrading to windows vista.

Your not one of the "tards" that bought HD-dvd and is upset blu-ray is doing well, are you?