"Norm" is not an absolute reference, and what i've said remains true. You can pretend that it isn't, but that doesn't change the reality of the situation. When you play a PS3 game, you expect it to have 32 players online, and you expect it to be on dedicated servers. When you play a *360* game (not the original xbox), you expect it to have no more than 16 players, and you expect it to be based on peer-to-peer connections. There are exceptions of course, but they are just that (in fa...
The core function of both gaming services is GAMING, is it not? On that feature alone, PS3 "has 360 beat" because of it's open infrastructure - 32 player matches as the norm (as opposed to 16), and dedicated servers (as opposed to peer-to-peer). And you have to pay for the other sh*t?
How desparate can you be to list movie sharing twice, live-tv twice, a mute button, and *slower* updates as features?
Doesn't sound like "lead platform", if anything.
Let's not forget that it is likely to come with further core size reduction and more compact cooling as well.
23 MILLION people didn't mind spending the "600-500$", so going by your argument, the PS3 IS advanced enough to be worth the price tag.
What is more amazing is that PS3 is selling at a faster rate than the 360, even at those price levels.
http://vgchartz.com/hwlaunc...
You managed to directly contradict what you've said, all in a single post.
Not many people can do that - guess you're special. Now you can go back and "stay in Forza threads", like you said u would if you're a forza fan.
LOL
Not the grill, please! :)
On a serious note, I totally agree with the must-keeps - wifi, bluetooth and usbs, are all necessary to the core function of the PS3.
I'm not quite sure what else they can remove really, though super_secret mentions the power button at the back (i suppose I've never touched it). The current models are pretty streamlined as they are...
For all the cries about how "complicated" the PS3 hardware is, it still produced the best looking visuals this generation. It doesn't need any other argument to prove how "advanced" it is.
Perhaps what some of these developers call "complicated" is just 'different' - like learning a new language. Sure they'll biatch about it, but inevitably, as Naughty Dog and even a third party like Capcom has consistently shown, they will speaking it fluently.
For what i wanted out of the box, I would have had to pay more for an equally featured 360. That's not even counting Live fees. Try again.
In what way does Live's content eclipse PSN's? In addition to the games that he mentioned, I could also add larger games such as Warhawk, GT5P and Siren. The PS1 library is also a huge reservoir of classics. Sony first party DLC is well supported indeed. I don't think Ben's argument is that far fetched.
I think your "three times as much content revenue as PSN" is just fanboy BS. There is no way to separate subscription costs from Live's total revenue - what you have ...
It is his opinion, as you have yours. I don't think you've read his article really. His main contention is that of content - PSN's content appears to be more appealing to him than Live's.
I would give u bubbles all day long if i could :)
Why should anyone bother to wake u up, guitar?
You're not a fragfx user, are u?
The answer to the first question is obviously "not when it makes my console of choice look foolish".
It is a culture that promotes mediocrity and celebrates holding-back, for the sake of being able to say they did not lose afterall.
If it hasn't already, the mentality of "good enough" will set in. Sales numbers and multiplatform titles become the staple argument for one's console superiority, rather than the quality of the content itself.
That "effort and money" resulted in the best looking games this generation, period. As a PS3 owner, I couldn't be happier with that.
The year head start for 360 is a perfectly valid explanation for why it is ahead of the PS3 at the moment. The PS3 is selling at a faster rate than the 360, and if they were to launch together, the PS3 would indeed be in front. It doesn't get simpler than that (perhaps even then, it is not simple enough for you).
http://vgchartz.com/h...
It seems those "points in time" happen pretty frequently. Konami, namco bandai, take two, capcom, even EA reported higher earnings from PS3 than the 360. Maybe they were not the right "points in time"? LOL
@Saber
Yes indeed, we are going to sit there and tell you that PS3 exclusives look vastly superior.
You are entitled to your own comparisons, but you are not fooling anyone.
No one really cares if you have wet dreams for the 360, out of the blue.
The reality of it is that the capacity offered by blu-ray would be most optimal for an open world game. The nature of CELL should help with the amount of activity on screen. Those two features are indeed exclusive to the PS3.