I think it's bs how I am supposed to pay for an internet connection and then also pay microsoft to play games that I also paid for online, BULL****! I think Sony would have to think about it because they have used the whole PSN being free gig as a big marketingn strategy to attract users. However, if they expand the PSN to be something so big that it'll start costing them alot of money to run then they might be forced to start charging. I for one am satisfied with it. If I can connect to a game, and play it and leave and do it any time later on then I'm happy with PSN. I don't need or want all this extra bs that XBOX live has. I'd rather have a free membership with less options. Because let's not forget, when it comes down to it, you're more or less paying the money for the ability to play games online, not edit your personal emoticons in your profile or watever.

However, back to the idea of if it starts costing Sony alot that they might have to start it. It might or might not happen. Because Sony has a history with the PS2 and PS3 duh of losing quite a bit of money just to later get a bigger profit. So if they expand to be larger than xbox live and still make it free, it'll cost them alot but if it attracts 120 million unit sales in the long run like PS2 then they will end up making a crap load of money from and all the game sales. Cuz imagine it, 120 million units x atleast 10 games per system. ALOTTTT of money.

The PS3 has its fair share of problems that sets it back. Its just that noone owns a PS3 that makes noone talk about the problems it has. GalesOfOctober

The PS3 has its fair share of problems that sets it back. Its just that noone owns a PS3 that makes noone talk about the problems it has. GalesOfOctober

Yeah dude you're totally right, XBOX 360 has 17 million units sold (and that INCLUDES every 360 they replaced due to faulty hardware which is a high rate as it is) and PS3 only has a little teeny eeny 11 million units sold. No one has a PS3 at all it's a dead system... man.

I see so many companies today using the cheapest parts possibile to build their products. Not just console wise, but electronics in general.

So why did Sony choose to use high quality parts knowing full well it would cost them an arm and a leg?

They could have built their console like the competition, where it breaks all the time. I applaud Sony for their hard work. I am so very impressed with their attitude towards electronics that I always recommend their products to everyone. Tvs,stereos, etc.

Sony FTW!!! :D

FearTheRain

PS2 has sold over 120 million units since it's launch. Hell I just bought my girlfriend one this week. My friend has had his PS2 since 2001 and it still works perfectly and guess what, he still gets PS2 games. So I would assume Sony wants it's product to last 7-10 years, literally each unit I mean not the popularity of it, so that people will continue to buy media for it for years to come = huge revenue in the log run (they always had this strategy of lose first and gain much much more later and it's worked many times) It's kind of an obvious business model given the success of ps3's predecessor.

http://www.joystiq.com/2008/01/17/rumorang-crysis-1-5-to-ps3-not-xbox-360/

Speculation? Yes, but my buddy works at Sony is says this is a very possible situation. I personally don't see the 360 handling Crysis. Given the PS3 has 7 SPE's it could very well use them to process all the physics and vegetation movements and pulling off this title.

Does the survival mode get unlocked after you beat the game? And are there multiple levels for survival? How does it work exactly?