Can't really say. I can only tell you my own experience. From my experience, the GameStops near me usually have a Wii or three in the back, but they go in about a day. It certainly wasn't like a year ago when they'd go in minutes, but they're rare in the sense that you probably can't just stroll into any Walmart/Gamestop/Best Buy and expect five Wii's to be available. You still need to shop around.

Or you could buy online for way over-priced.

Well, I think I was a bit misunderstood about the multiplatform thing. What I meant was, consider this example:

Let's say I own a 360. I want to play Devil May Cry 4. If that game wasn't multiplatform, I HAVE to go out and buy a PS3 to play it. It's that simple. There's no other way I'll get to play the game. Of course, I could just say, "Oh, PS3 is too expensive, I guess I'll live without DMC4 then." And yeah, I could say that, but that doesn't help the "multiplatform makes you indifferent" argument.

But since DMC4 is multiplatform, it means that if I really love this game, I can play it on my 360. WITHOUT having to drop $400 on a PS3. And because I don't HAVE to drop $400, why SHOULD I? Hence how it's one less reason to get the other console. And before you say, "well, Devil May Cry is just one game", let's not forget that it's not "just" a game, it's a major franchise that was beloved by many PS2 owners (myself included).

Now am I saying that "OMGZ0Rz PS3 lost exclusives so = FAIL!"? Well ... no. I do believe it's a factor, but only in the sense that someone with a 360 has fewer reasons to buy a PS3, and someone on the fence between a PS3 and an Xbox 360 will have another reason they don't neccessarily have to get a PS3. Let me give you another example: I got a PS2 for Final Fantasy X. I also got an Xbox, because I wanted Halo as well. If the Xbox had FFX, what reason would I have had to get a PS2? FFX was really the only game I wanted on the system at the time.

If you really have a PS3...invite An_Art_of_War and say you are from gamespot. I doubt you really do, it is definently not a disappointing console, the exclusives are good, not great, but good enough to keep me enjoyed, but the best games of this gen so far seem to be multi plat anyways.AlphaRail

OK then, AlphaRail, I will take you up on this offer. I will send you a message via my PS3, just a "hey there" to prove to you that I do in fact own a PS3. Look for a message from "Ertihan". And yes, I feel that this console is one of my personal biggest disappointments. I sort've feel like the guy who purchased a Dreamcast or an HD-DVD player, except worse because I paid a lot more for it. And the fact that the best games are multiplatform is salt in the wound. I begin wondering, "so if I had a 360 only, I could play all my favorite games. If I had a PS3, I could play SOME of them, but the rest are 360-exclusive. So ... WHY did I buy this $500 thing again?!"

Multiplatform just means that there's one less reason to own the other console. The whole point of exclusivity is that it makes owning a particular console mandatory to play that game. Want Halo 3? Well then you need an Xbox 360 or you can't play it, it's that simple. But with titles going multiplatform, while you CAN play it on either system it also means that the console which lost exclusivity just lost another reason to be purchased. Or even used.

And yes, the bit about there not being any good games, now or in the future, was my opinion, borne out by the fact that in every instance PS3 exclusive games turn out in disappointing numbers. One after another Sony trumpeted out a game that was to be its saviour, the one that would turn the tides and finally make the PS3 as big a force as the 360, and finally drive it over the 10million mark.

First was Lair. Then it was Heavenly Sword. Then Haze (which never materialized). Then Ratchet and Clank. Then Uncharted. All throughout this, Home was supposed to revolutionize the PS3, but that got pushed back so many times it's starting to become the Duke Nukem Forever of the Playstation world. Are the games I mentioned good? With the exception of Lair and Haze (mainly because Haze isn't out yet), yeah, they're OK. They're certainly not terrible, and are actually pretty fun. Are they game-breaking, finally made the PS3 a dominant force, I must get a PS3 to play this game good? Well ... no. I don't think any of them are. Can you honestly say otherwise?

Maybe Metal Gear Solid will change that, who knows. But despite everyone saying that Konami and Kojima insisting that it'll never come to the 360; that's only for now. When the sales figures come in at disappointing levels, I think they may very possibly change their mind. Lest we forget, the PS3 has the smallest install base of any console right now, even smaller than its older brother the PS2. Unless EVERY PS3 owner bought Metal Gear Solid 4, I seriously doubt Konami's going to make the profits they want. And as a company they'll probably want to do something about that.

I just thought I'd say: isn't it interesting that all the multiplatforms are going in one direction? As in, it's Sony exclusives that are constantly being made to be multiplatform and not Xbox exclusives. You don't hear, "Breaking news! Jade Empire 2 will be on the PS3 too!". As for Metal Gear Solid, they probably will keep it PS3 exclusive for a while, but if even a massive seller like Grand Theft Auto and Devil May Cry needed to be multiplatform to make money, you can bet your butt that Konami will port it to the 360 sooner or later.

I am more than a little suprised, though, that I seem to be the only person here who bought a PS3 only to seriously regret the decision. Has nobody else bought this thing, then six months later sat down and thought, "wow, what a huge mistake that was"?

[QUOTE="Coredog777"]

[QUOTE="black_awpN1"]Because its a great console? Shocking isnt it?Willy105

says who, you? No thanks, PS3 is only around because people are buying it as a cheap blu ray player. Best games on Wii and 360.

Which goes back to the heart of what I was trying to ask: why isn't it? All evidence seems to say that it should be, but it's still alive, which defies all logic. I just wanted to know how those PS3 people justify the expense to themselves, because it really seems like to me they're the ones keeping the console on life support.

And why do you feel the need to judge? I did not indicate that I was neccessarily a fanboy of the Wii or the Xbox 360, merely pointing out the many flaws of the PS3. For the record, I purchased my own PS3 about six months ago and I must say I was extremely disappointed with the product. I don't understand the mentality that just because you purchase something that automatically makes you a rabid fan. I'm sure we've all purchased things, not just games and consoles, that we ended up not liking. So I don't see why having purchased a PS3 should make me a Cow. Or why owning a 360 and a Wii should make me a Lemming or a Sheep.

Don't get me wrong, the 360 has its fair share of problems, not least of which the jet engine disk drive and its notorious reliability issues. The Wii has been pretty solid these last few months and is the only console I've yet to find any real fault with. Nevertheless the topic wasn't about those consoles. It was a genuine attempt to understand how a console with so many failings could still be on the market and actually selling. And how people who purchase it can justify that kind of expense to themselves.