So I bought my Xbox 360 Elite recently, as some of you may or may not remember. Anyway, I was wondering something: should I buy Lost Planet and Gears of War? The reason I'm asking this is because Halo 3 is coming out soon (and I preordered it too). So would Halo 3 basically totally eclipse LP and GoW? Meaning, when Halo 3 comes out, would the whole multiplayer community for those two games instantly dry up? If so, there's no point in getting them, I might as well just wait for Halo 3 and buy Lost Planet and Gears of War some other time. Unless their single player is worth it ... is it?

Premium is the best option if you don't have much money to spare and don't play console games often anyway, nor download content from Xbox LIVE. Elite is the best all-round option, and it's badass looking with the matte black finish. The Halo 3 edition is really tripe; it doesn't come with Halo 3 and it's essentially the Premium in a green skin. Pretty much the only reason to get the Halo 3 edition Xbox 360 is for bragging rights since it's a limited edition so Micro$oft won't be making any more after this; still, are bragging rights worth the extra money? I guess it's up to you to decide.

I went with the Elite and it's been a great investment for me.

I have the exact same problem. My solution? I keep telling myself, "hey, you paid the money, and you have the rest of your life to finish these games. Nobody ever said you had to finish them in two weeks. This isn't a homework assignment; there is no due date."

About your older games; I find that, depending on the game, gameplay sometimes can trump graphics. Take Baldur's Gate II, for instance. I find it addicting and fun, despite the fact that its graphics are nearly a decade old. Sometimes, the story and the characters just draw you in.

If you find yourself without time to play all your games, I would suggest you think long and hard about what exactly you want out of your games. It would help if I had a list of the games you owned, or at least a partial list, as well as your priorities. As an example, if for example you prioritize enjoying a good interactive story, and you owned Baldur's Gate II, I'd say keep BG2 and play it at your own pace. If, on the other hand, you want snappy graphics and exciting gameplay, I'd say drop BG2 and go get the latest, next generation game.

By the way, if you live near a GameStop or other such gaming store, often times they'll give you credit at the store if you trade in old games, at a certain percentage of the worth of the game. Over time, the credit adds up, and if you were to hand in your entire library, chances are you'd have enough credit that you could treat yourself to perhaps 3 or 4 next generation games at maybe $5 each.

That's rather ironic, because at MY EB games they actually pushed the PS3 on me, which was why I got that first before getting my Xbox 360. I guess the EB Games where I live is slightly different than every other EB Games in the country :?. I gotta say though, that I do love my PS3, it's a great machine, and I wish that Sony would hurry up and release more games for it. See, it's not so much the CONSOLE that I'm seeing poor representation of, it's the game library! For instance, at my local Blockbuster, I see two whole shelves dedicated to Xbox 360 game rentals, and less than half a shelf for PS3 rentals!

Seriously, it's not the console that generates cash for Sony, it's the games. It's why gaming companies sell consoles at a loss in the first place: they hope to make back the money and then some through exclusivity deals (think Halo 3, Haze, Killzone 2, etc). The thing that irritates me the most is how the PS3 is underrepresented where it truly hurts most: on the shelves of the stores that sell their games. If there were more PS3 games, then there would automatically be more sales of PS3's.