Keep it. The PS3 is still improving - new features and services and some good exclusives still in the works. Because of the recent price drops you won't get much $$ for the trade-in. If you want to use it more then look at exclusive games, hire movies using PSN, Netflix etc, if you don't have a media centre unit then throw TVersity or PS3MediaServer onyour PC to play your downloaded content in the lounge.

Red Dead Redemption: Undead Nightmare is great if you like the original... and zombies.

It's for storing, viewing and editing your own photos and videos.

It will be interesting to see HOW you get videos on there since they can be big and the PS3 only supports FAT32 from USB storage devices which limits filesto 4GB. Additional filesystem support is LONG overdue.

Microsoft was recently awarded a patent for PVR functionality on a console including the ability to record gameplay and other console video. If it stands then Sony may have to pay a license to MS to do a similar thing on the PS3.

I draw two parallels: a) high def video is better than standard def video, b) surround sound is better than stereo which is better than mono audio. Most people see in 3D so surely a move toward realism is beneficial?

Few people can argue that high def video or stereo audio is worth it, but when it comes to 3D video it get's a bit grey because a) some people with otherwise "normal" vision find they see no improvement with 3D because they are partially "3D blind", b) current tech isn't as good as it needs to be, c) 3D gaming on consoles costs about the same as a low budget surround sound system ($100-$400 premium over 2D).

Of the almost 40 3D games I've playedthe 3D is excellent in a handful, good in many, and poor in a handful. For me it is a definite plus.

If anyone has ANY suggestions or info on this problem I would really appreciate the help! EDIT: also forgot to mention that when the picture cuts out the TV still displays "no signal".dcno07

There are no definitive statistics but it is generally stated that about 20% of people are unable to play 3D games or watch 3D movies because they lack proper 3D vision or it causes them too much eye strain. Then there's a portion who can watch it but still get headaches and need to take a break after a while. On top of that some people don't like it because of the requirement to wear glasses - for comfort, asthetic or picture quality (darker/color tint/crosstalk).

Having a keen interest in 3D gaming I've read through and contributed to many, many threads. It isn't for everyone but there is a small group of vocal people who call it a gimick or dismiss it without providing a reason. My interpretation of this is that a) they're pissed that they're in the "can't watch 3D" category (which is fine, just don't b*tch about it - I don't try to get nuts banned just because I can't eat them), b) they haven't watched any good 3D content (there are some amazing titles and content is increasing), c) the tech is too expensive for them (dropping quickly so hopefully affordable in time), or d) they're just not interested (they're not visually oriented - it's totally about the game and not about the visuals - they'd be happy with low res).

For me it is a no-brainer: 3D gaming is great and the best improvement since HD. I've played dozens of games in 3D. Best so far: UC3, GT5, MSA, MS3DR, GOW Ghost of Sparta, Ico, SSHD, WipeoutHD, Avatar, Gears 3. Within the next few months there will be 100 3D games for the PS3 and 40 for the 360.

It needs more good games for sure but exclusives? They tend to be higher quality than similar multi-plat games but the 360 only needs more good exclusives if it is to gain ground over the PS3 (and possibly to stay current against the Wii U - time will tell). It's doing ok so no real need at the moment.

We won't see many PS3 exclusives come to the 360 so no use crying about that.I'm lucky that I have a PS3 as well and having played a lot of PS3 exclusives I'd be heart broken if I had to give up the PS3 but if you only have a 360 then there is nothing to worry about (similarly if you only had a PS3). Microsoft and Sony don't buy many dev shops so there's no real threat to losing games.

If the game is good you shouldn't care if the game is exclusive or multi-plat.

There's a lot of detail and analysis on the new visuals and effects with discussion with Naughty Dog here:

Eurogamer Digital Foundry vs Uncharted 3:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-vs-uncharted-3

I must be blind..I really don't see that much of a difference between U2 and U3. Well except for the character faces are better, and now they have some seriously weird looking eye balls. Over all, except for better lighting effects, the rest of the game looks like U2 to me.

coasterguy65

In terms of in-game visuals, yes. The graphics engine in UC3 is top notch and the art and textures, modelling, lighting, effects and anti-aliasing creates an amazing level of detail in both the overall environment and characters (particularly the close-ups), bordering on realistic in a few scenes but for the most part still shows its animated core. Single player is also one of the best, if not the best, stereoscopic 3D games on consoles.

A close second technically is Gran Turismo 5 for its near photo realism with some tracks & cars (and like UC3 one of the best in 3D).Gears of War 3 on Xbox 360 is also excellent but lacks slightly in overall polish and looks more animated. Honorable mentions: Alan Wake, GOW2, Forza 4, God of War 3, Uncharted 2, Mass Effect 2, Battlefield 3. There are many others behind these that are alsovery good.