Well .... let's not forget that if you're gonna use your PSP for ANYTHING else (like gaming ...) that'll eat up space too. But if it's just music, think of it like this: it's like an iPod, only it's an iPod with only 1 GB of space :roll:. Basically, around 300 songs if your songs are regular-sized. If you like classical music and start putting in Sonata-length songs in there, ummm, maybe like 100 if you're lucky.

The 4 GB cards are around 80 bucks as I understand, not TOO shabby, and you can hold a lot more music, if you're really into that. But honestly, if you wanna listen to music, might as well get Sony's Walkman, because music is what that product was designed for.

I don't understand why the Wii can't have a nice Pokemon! I mean, the DS has Diamond and Pearl, but all we get is that godawful Pokemon Battle Revolution? One other thing I always wondered about; why are the home console Pokemon games always stadium-type games? Why can't we have a regular Pokemon game, only for the Wii? You know, the kind of start-at-home, meet the professor for your starter, go though the game until you get to the elite-four style regular Pokemon game, only instead of for a handheld, it's for the Wii?

While I'm wishing, why can't that game have enhanced 3D graphics (especially during pokemon battles), since it IS on a much larger disk format (DVD instead of DS cartridge)? And perhaps a larger game world ... PLUS that game could "talk" to the DS much the way Battle Revolution did! I bet it'd sell pretty well; I'm pretty sure most Wii owners probably have a DS, and many DS owners probably have Pearl/Diamond. I'd buy it for sure!

I guess it's nostalgia; people have always been playing pokemon on the GameBoy handhelds forever, maybe Nintendo's just not come around to the idea of bringing that franchise to the home console fully. Who knows ... *shrugs* I can always dream though...

Firstly, let's take a look at hardware. The PS3 has had so many SKUs over the last year it's bewildering. It's also bewildering as to what Sony is thinking; lest we forget, this is what Sega did as well (first the Sega CD, then the 32X, then the Neptune which never saw the light of day, finally the Dreamcast, by which point the game developers got so fed up they decided to avoid Sega's consoles like they were a bunch of lepers). The PS3 has had a 20GB, a 40GB, a 60GB, and an 80GB, all with varying differences that anyone but somebody who followed Sony's consoles closesly would confuse. Quick! Which one has full backwards compatibility but no WiFi? But wait! There's more. Sony's decided four isn't enough, and now they're discontinuing the 80GB too. Rumor has it a 120GB version might be coming out. Way to go Sony, go and confuse your consumer base some more, why dontcha?

Another thing to notice with the PS3 is the number of people who buy third-party games that are multiplatform. Notice that in almost every case, when a game comes out for both the PS3 and the Xbox 360, the Xbox 360 versions sell more than the PS3 versions? According to VG Chartz (look, I know they aren't the MOST accurate site, but the differences are so huge they can't be off by THAT much), Call of Duty 4 sold around 4.6 million on the 360. Only 2.25 million for the PS3. 3.32 million for Assassin's Creed on the 360, 2.15 million on the PS3. As for Devil May Cry 4, at the time I last checked the numbers were not in yet, but I would not be at all surprised if the Xbox 360 version sold about twice as many, despite the fact that Devil May Cry has always been a Playstation staple.

Why is this? Part of it can be attributed to the fewer PS3 consoles sold, but that can't be the whole story. There's a whole lot more than 4.6 million Playstation 3 consoles out there, yet why are there only 2.25 million of them with Call of Duty 4 playing? And why isn't Sony doing anything about this? They seem to be digging their grave even deeper, not trying to get out of it like they should. They're constantly tinkering with their higher end SKU, even though the price has always been a sore point and they ought to be doing everything they can to lower the price of their low-end SKU.

And the biggest issue, the games, they're not doing anything about. They've lost Grand Theft Auto and Devil May Cry exclusivity already, they're looking like they might even lose Metal Gear Solid, Final Fantasy (to Xbox 360), and possibly even LittleBigPlanet (to Wii, although the source for this one is very unreliable) as well, which if they do means they've lost nearly all their big-name franchises. Even if they don't, losing any exclusives shows weakness, which is not a good thing for any console. Not to mention; we've not heard of any major third-party Xbox or Wii-exclusives jumping ship and going multi-platform, just PS3 exclusives.

This isn't so much a PS3 bashing thread as a thread in wonderment at Sony's seeming blindness to their own situation. Instead of going into damage control and trying to salvage what they can, they blindly march forward like nothing's wrong. They release a new SKU even though they already have too many, they do nothing about the third-party developers whose exclusives are jumping ship one after another, and instead of apologising to the millions of PS3 owners about forcing a disk format that had no business being in a gaming console onto them, they gloat about how they were able to use those gamers like mules to win their format war.

I'm just curious as to what those folks at Sony are thinking. Perhaps they really are blind to their situation? Since they make the console I suppose its only natural they're all rabid Playstation fanboys, it just makes sense, but it doesn't make any business sense to be blind to the obvious; fanboys or not if the ship's sinking it's still a good idea to board up the leak before any more water gets in. If Sony continues along this path, it's quite likely the PS3 will end up much like the GameCube did last generation; not neccessarily dead, but dead last in the race with very little support. (and this is not to say Sony's finished, while the GameCube lagged behind the PS2 and the Xbox, it allowed Nintendo to survive long enough for the Wii to come out, so Sony still has a fighting chance if it gets its act together)

Topic. In all seriousness, why? The Playstation 2 is selling better than its supposed next-generation "big brother", the PS3. Even GameSpot acknowledges the platform: just look up. Notice how next to home we see: PC, xbox 360, wii, ps3, ps2, psp and ds? I think this venerable platform deserves its own forums, it's not dead yet! :) I mean, developers are still releasing new titles for the PS2, that's gotta count for something right? You don't see xbox games or gamecube games being made anymore, so I can agree they should be lumped in with the N64 and Dreamcast as legacy consoles, but the PS2 still has fight left in it!

Anyone agree? Or am I just talking into the wind...?

Seriously, after seeing all the whining about the 20 minute install for Devil May Cry 4, PS3 version, I was brought back to the days when I was a pure PC gamer. Ahhh, those were the days, when you had to plop in a CD (remember those?) and wait sometimes an hour to install some games. Yeah ... and the 5 GB? Isn't Crysis like 20 GB? Man, you consolites are really spoiled. Although I won't deny I like the fact that I can just buy a 360 game, put it in my console, and play, after years of installing games on my PC, I've long since learned to deal with it.

And honestly, most Xbox 360s have hard drives nowadays, and so do ALL PS3s. So I really think that future games SHOULD install to the HDD. PC games have been doing it forever, why NOT console games? It would probably help with load times, and you could finally have plenty of juicy HD content. And if you're thinking, "But ... but my HDD has limited space! That means I'll have to pick and choose which games I want on my 360!" Well guess what: buy a bigger HDD :). I mean, PC gamers have faced that choice too, you know, and WE never complained, we just got another hard drive ;).

Get what? That casuals like bad games? But, if that's what you like, then good for you.

OXIIIIXO

I think it's a bit unfair to judge casual games as "bad". I mean, if someone enjoys playing Wii Sports, then does that make it a bad game? It certainly isn't a bad game for that person. And that's another thing about this generation of gaming I find disturbing. Apparently, if you don't have eye-popping graphics, insane multiplayer, and guns, you're not a good game. I wonder what would've happened if Myst had never been made, and instead was released this year? I bet it would bomb. "OMG! A game that doesn't have guns! And no multiplayer! It's not even fully 3D!" Even if Myst had modern-era graphics to help it out, that still wouldn't save it from the dustbin. And that's a shame, because Myst was an awesome game.

The real reason I'm wondering about this is because if people actually go and believe that in order for a game to be good they need fast paced action and flashy graphics, and a hectic multiplayer, then that's what the devs will give us. It's a vicious cycle. And if that happens, the best parts of the games of the past, their deeper storylines, their believable characters, their more interesting, believeable, and sometimes even hand-crafted environments would make way for fluff. Remember Diablo II? Great right? Its graphics weren't that hot, but it was addictively fun. Now, remember Hellgate: London? Yeah....

[QUOTE="Popadophalis"]Yea you raise some good points, but seeing as we haven't seen an overall lack of quality (in the gameplay) then I don't really see too much wrong with the path that the 360/PS3 took. mjarantilla

Actually, we have. Morrowind to Oblivion, Rainbow Six to Rainbow Six Vegas, Baldur's Gate II to Mass Effect, System Shock 2 to BioShock, Prince of Persia to Assassin's Creed. All have shown distinct dips in quality and depth in favor of fast-paced action and flashy graphics. It's just that today's gaming population is easily impressed with cinematic visuals.

Exactly! Thank you for being far more eloquent than I ever could be ;). Now, if only developers had the guts to release old games with awesome gameplay, but with modern graphics! Could you imagine Morrowind with Oblivion's graphics? Baldur's Gate II with Mass Effect's graphics? Or System Shock 2 with Bioshock's? I definately would buy these remakes, and I know of quite a few friends who would too. Ah well, I can always dream....