[QUOTE="II_Seraphim_II"][QUOTE="Ontain"]because you probably downloaded a compressed fine so that it would be faster to download. the install could just be decompression. they could always just hide that fact from you so that you still think it's just part of the download time. Exactly this. PSN uses compressed files so if you have a slower internet connection you don't spend all year waiting, which is good because some demos are massive in size :PWell if that the case, why do downloads on the PS3 take so long. They are much much slower on the PS3 than the 360.
[QUOTE="Parasomniac"]A MS monopoly would be horrible. A Sony monopoly already happened and everything was fine.tok1879
You have to be kidding! 1st, there was never a Sony monopoly, they always had competition. 2nd if Sony had a monopoly the PS3 would still be $600. Is that what you want, a $600 console with crap online that was PSN? The ONLY reason the price went down was because of competition and the ONLY reason PSN started getting better was because of Xbox live. Sony did have a good hold on the markel last gen and the result was a $600 system and you think that is ok? Imagine if Sony did have a monopoly, what would the price of the console and the games be then? I agree with 80% of what you wrote, but i'm also sure that a M$ monopoly would be much worse than a Sony one.I am not trying to defend MS, I am just replying to his fanboyish comment. A MS monopoly would be just as bad. He is just under this hugely mistaken idea that a Sony is the angel of video gaming, when in fact they are terrible. A $600 PS3 was just the clue of what a Sony monopoly would be like, because that was with competition. Imagine them without competition.
A MS monopoly would be horrible. A Sony monopoly already happened and everything was fine.Parasomniac
You have to be kidding! 1st, there was never a Sony monopoly, they always had competition. 2nd if Sony had a monopoly the PS3 would still be $600. Is that what you want, a $600 console with crap online that was PSN? The ONLY reason the price went down was because of competition and the ONLY reason PSN started getting better was because of Xbox live. Sony did have a good hold on the markel last gen and the result was a $600 system and you think that is ok? Imagine if Sony did have a monopoly, what would the price of the console and the games be then?
The only game that wowed me this gen was Gears of War 1, since then games still look great and even better than GeoW but not enough to wow me now. Even U2 wasnt so much better than GeoW to wow me.
supersaiyen
You must clearly have eye problems or never actually played uc2.Well tell you what, my PSN id and my gamertag are in my sig. You can look my up on PSN and see my trophies for U2. It was one of my favorite games this gen but it did not wow me, sorry. I would bet you didnt have a 360 when GeoW came out. I know U2 looks better than GeoW but not enough better to wow me. Sorry to break your cow heart.
The only game that wowed me this gen was Gears of War 1, since then games still look great and even better than GeoW but not enough to wow me now. Even U2 wasnt so much better than GeoW to wow me.
So lets be clear here. You are asking why they only spent $300 for a 360 when they could have bought a $300 PS3 AND a $500 pc to play most of the games? Is that even a question? Where do you get your ideas from? WOW, just, WOW....lol :lol:
Log in to comment