Color it what you want Bathyj. But it is a form of bias. I can understand having a preference. I have owned all 3 Sony Playstation consoles. But somewhere over the course of owning an original Xbox and then buying the Xbox 360 first I started to prefer the Xbox 360 more. Probably because of the controller and online service.
I got Kinect as a gift for my wifes son but as it currently stands it is not plugged in. Kinect doesn't ruin my Xbox 360 experience or take away from...
I have a feeling you "never" intended to buy any more consoles from a certain manufacturer that rhymes with Microsoft. But I could be wrong. Not like your comment history since your days on Gamespot have anything to do with a certain Pro-Sony Anti-Microsoft bias or anything /s
On topic: I'm sure the next Microsoft console will have some form of Kinect integration. As long as they allow their owners to use Kinect as an "alternative" form of controlling ...
Why do so many people on this site spew thier Pro-Sony opinion as if it is fact? I have a PS3 and 360. I'll tell you right now that I do most of my gaming on my 360. I prefer the controller, the online service, and the exclusive games that the 360 has. That is my opinion. Obviously it is different from that of 90 percent of N4G's population. Doesn't mean I think the PS3 is crap or it's games suck. I just have my preferences.
Value is subjective. Megaton never ...
^^THIS^^
That is the point I have been making. I have an IPhone. My wife does too. Her son has an IPod touch, a 3DS, and a PSP. Her son doesn't even touch the PSP or 3DS ever since he got his IPod touch. If he wants to play the "hardcore" games he plays either the PS3 or 360 on the 40 inch HDTV.
He reads gaming magazines every month but hasn't once asked us if he could get a Vita. If the Vita doesn't appeal to him or my other 3 boys and ...
$250.00 for a Vita is steal when you compare the capabilities/technology to the 3DS, smartphones, and tablets.
The problem is the Vita is missing that one KILLER app/game that gets the attention of the masses and creates a need/want to buy the console.
I personally am on the fence about the Vita. I purchased 4 PSP's after the price dropped below $200.00 last generation for each of my 4 children. The problem is now all my kids want IPOD touches and IPAD...
I didn't say that people wouldn't want their favorite types of games on the go. If they are the so called "hard-core" gamers that want to play those types of games on the go then those games listed are appealing. The problem is that most of that demographic already play those games on their PS3/360 and haven't found a need to buy a Vita.
The Vita has been out since December in Japan and February everywhere else. For it to only have sold 2.2 million conso...
That is a nice list. If you're a PS3 owner that wants PS3 type games on the go. But this doesn't solve the problem the Vita faces.
It's not a lack of games, or the price, but a lack of interest in the console. I mean the Vita ONLY sold 400,000 console this past quarter. That averages out to 133,333 Vita's sold per month between April-June. That is less than the PSP or original DS sold in the same time period.
I think Sony misjudged the current...
Were those ports free? That is the problem with cross buy. It's one thing for Sony to do cross buy and not charge for the Vita version of the game. Their interest is in both the sale of hardware and software and they have been bundling games since the PS3 launched in order to help sell hardware.
Where is the incentive for 3rd party publishers to do cross buy? Especially with the low install base of the Vita...
How did you download LBP2 for free of you're "paying" for Playstation Plus? Better yet. How will you feel if you cancel Playstation Plus and have to give back your "free" game???
Sony is not giving you those games for free. You pay a subscription in order to "rent" the games. If you cancel your subscription you don't get to play the games anymore.
Sony is following in Microsoft's footsteps by setting up a Pay To Play service. They are just going about it a different way. They are both only the equivalent of $5.00 a month. To me it's worth it for a unified online gaming service.
If Sony introduces the features tha...
Sega didn't have the backing of a lot of 3rd party developers and didn't have the money to compete with Sony even though they launched a year earlier. That is why they lost. Plus remember that Nintendo and Microsoft released their consoles a year later than the PS2.
Timing will be huge this time around too...
Where is your proof that apps and services are more important than games on the 360?
How is Microsoft charging you to use your internet connection? Last time I checked you paid your ISP for that.
Show me proof that the 360 is now just a casual gamers console when it still gets exclusives and has the same access to multiplatform titles that the PS3 does.
I swear it's only on Pro-Sony websites that you find people such as Pirate Thom trying...
All any of us that are concerned with TOTAL sales has to do is pay attention to the quarterly "shipped" numbers that each console manufacturer releases. Because that is the true number that counts.
Anyways as a purchaser of 3 Xbox 360's, 2 PS3's, and 1 Wii, I don't have to worry about which console won the SALES race. I can now just focus on GAMES!!!!!
That is the problem. The PS Vita only appeals to the hardcore crowd that already owns a PS3 and PSP.
Sony has to expand the appeal of the Vita or it will continue to have poor sales.
They need to drop the price, advertise better, and make games that appeal to people who want to play games on the go.
My statement stands. The Xbox 360 and Wii got by this generation without Blu-Ray. So it wasn't needed. Sony could have used DVD this generation too and been just fine.
Edit: Pixelsword. How many games were "gimped"? If you saying that a few games out of hundreds of games required more than one DVD disc is proof of Blu-Ray being needed then I guess CD-ROM wasn't good enough for the PS1 either since I had games that used multiple CD's. Again my statement ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...
Sony does not own a patent on Blu-Ray. They are one of several companies that get royalties but they do not won Blu-Ray outright.
If Sony did own Blu-Ray outright then Blu-Ray would have failed. No way all the other Blu-Ray manufacturers would let one company control it.
Sony is only "one" of several companies that would benefit from the Blu-Ray royalties. Even as much as I prefer my 360 to my PS3 and don't think that Blu-Ray was needed this generation. I can still see the logic in using Blu-Ray next generation for the increased capacity and for the physical media for games.
Please don't make 360 owners look bad ever again...
What made sak500's comment a fanboy comment? He is correct. Blu-Ray wasn't needed this generation as far as for use in videogames.
95% of all Xbox 360 games run on one disc. The games that use multiple discs did not ruin the gameplay experience whatsoever.
I bought my PS3 to have a Blu-Ray player for movies and to also play a few PS3 exclusives. That's it. The value of Blu-Ray this generation was as an HD movie player. The short single player camp...
Thank you Grammar Nazi for adding absolutely nothing to this discussion.
On topic: Nintendo always provides great games. Congrats to the 3DS.
I don't understand the COD hate either. My kids and I enjoy playing the game. Whether it's split screen local MP, online MP, Zombies MP, it's just plain fun.
Maybe the graphics arent the best EVER. Maybe the game is TOO easy. But regardless it's pure entertainment for us. Out of all the games I buy every year new or used. COD gives us the most value.