The Evo 3d is 200 bucks with the 2 yr plan, which is to say that the price is 200 bucks. The 650 is the ridiculous price tag they throw on it to make 200 bucks sound like a deal, which it isn't.

I looked at it, and the 3d is absolutely horrendous, so if that's the way the 3ds is all I can say is, "Thank God they have an off switch for the 3d."

I'm actually quite irked with Sprint right now, I got the $175 upgrade on my account, but that doesn't bring the price of a new phone down anymore than the $75 dollar upgrade, which means the upgrade means absolutely nothing, since you get the same "deal" walking in off the street and starting a plan.

I have a Hero right now, and that phone is a turd.

Pug-Nasty

It's only $200 with a plan...

DanteSuikoden

errr....yay?gamefan67

I love HTC, I think their sense UI is brilliant and adds a great deal to even the latest build of android OS. I wouldn't buy an android phone that is not HTC because I believe them to be head and shoulders above everyone else. Having said this, I was anxiously anticipating the HTC Evo 3D. It features a gorgeous 4.3" capacitive touch screen display and glasseless 3D technology as well as dual 5 megapixel cameras with flash and 720p 3D video recording.

I was positive the 3D would be better than what Nintendo did with their 3DS. The main complaint I have with the 3DS is I believe the screen is too small. I wish they would release an XL 3D model. Well, to my surprise the 3D on the Evo is terrible. Reports say it gives you a massive headache. And the viewing angles are even worse than those on the 3DS. The 3D is done differently than the tech in the 3DS. On the Evo the 3D effects pop out of the screen while on the 3DS you get added depth to get the 3D.

Also the Evo 3D doesn't have a slider to adjust the 3D effect. Everyone's eyes are different distances apart and knowing this Nintendo allows you to adjust the 3D so it is comfortable for your unique set of eyes. With the Evo you are just left with a massive headache unless you are lucky enough to be blessed with a set of eyes that happen to match the systems 3D output.

The HTC Evo 3D is a great android phone and is a huge improvement in every way over last years Evo. However, if you look at the 3D aspect alone, it gets curb stomped by the Nintendo 3DS.

The next challenger will be the LG Optimus 3D android phone wich features 3D and is said to have a much better 3D effect than the Evo 3D. We'll wait and see for it to release later this year.

The PS3 might be a RELATIVE failure, but in absolute terms, it's a great success. I mean, come on, not every console sells over 50 million units. I am a Lem, by the way. I just hate it when people start calling good systems failures. khoofia_pika

Dont know, but I dont think sony expected to sell more than the PS2. Not with a price tag of $600, even today the consols cost too much 6 years in to the gen and they are still $300.

GTSaiyanjin2

The PS2 is the best selling system of all time, it even sells today. Sony had it all, what a great brand! They had all the games too, everything. The PS2 is the definition of awesome gaming system. And it was hardcore as hell, screw the casuals. The PS2 didn't need the casuals to sell like hotcakes.

I don't think anyone predicted that after the PS1's success and the even more successful and really amazing PS2, that Sony would lay an egg with the PS3. But why did it happen? What caused this abysmal failure? Even today they can't even get network security right 5 years after their launch. They were known for their backwards compatibility and that's gone too. But why?

I think Sony made the monstrous mistake of adopting Blu-ray. Without Blu-ray, the PS3 would've launched at an affordable $400 and with full BC that doesn't get removed later due to a mad frenzy by Sony to cut costs.

Don't get me wrong, the 360 is a great system and they jumped out of the gate doing a lot of great things. But the PS3 would've destroyed the 360 had they launched at $400 and today both the 360 and PS3 would cost $200. Sony would've blown MS away in sales. And you know what else, they would've blown the Wii away too.

The sad part is that Blu-ray doesn't add anything to games. It will be great for the PS4 and even necessary but for the PS3 and especially in 2006, it was a complete and total disaster!

That's just my opinion. What do you think is responsible for the PS3's abysmal failure this gen?

myth going around these boards. Isn't it interesting that anytime someone brings up graphics king, you see a bunch of modded Crysis pics going up? It's absurd, Crysis doesn't look that good. Actually Crysis was surpassed a long time ago by console games. I'm not crazy. Games such as Killzone 2, Uncharted and God of War 3 all look better than Crysis.

And everyone knows it too. That's why you see Hermits so defensive with their modded Crysis pics. Hermits yell about resolution, high quality textures, lighting and fps. And it's true, a high end PC allows you to dial all these effects way up. But the truth is console games look better even with lower res, lower quality textures and lower fps.

Some of you will call me a PC hater but that's not the case at all. I've been building PCs since they had ISA slots for graphics. I remember when they first introduced the PCI slot. I remember the 3Dfx Voodoo graphics chipset. I remember the first real competition it had against Nvidia's Riva 128 which did 2D and 3D in the same card. But it had drawbacks such as support for Direct 3D which was very crude back then. Voodoo used it's Glide Api and of course Open Gl. Later 3dfx launched the Voodoo 2 which was great but again no 2D. Nvidia responded later with their TNT which actually didn't meet the promised performance. But they finally got their with the TNT 2. And then came the GeForce which had T&L engine and the rest is history. Anyway, what really killed 3Dfx wasn't Nvidia's superior tech, it was their ignorance of the OEM market while Nvidia did great business there.

I still stay up to date with the latest advancements in PC tech and you can even say i'm a hermit. But the nonsense has to end, consoles are not evil. They are helping grow this industry. What is evil is all the PC elitists who believe it is ok for them to steal every game even before it is released. And then these thieves have the audacity to criticize PC devs for concentrating their development on Consoles. PC is lucky to get the sloppy ports which we know end up pirated anyway.

And yes, Crysis was beaten a long time ago by PS3 exclusives. And you want to know what else, Crysis 2 looks better than Crysis 1. Everyone knows this but it's never spoken here because you get a bunch of Hermits with modded Crysis pics spamming the forum.

tc does make an excellent point. I dont think people are realizing what he's acutally pointing out: the fact that you won't really be gaining as much out of the extra 400 or so$ spent with minimal upgrades (that is IF sony/MS decide to release a next gen console that isn't really greatly upgraded than the present ones).

In that case, yes TC you're right, its pointless.

Ribnarak

It's pointless for us to upgrade which would make it a financial disaster for the company that releases such a device. What must be understood is that we gamers are extremely stubborn and very attached to our systems. It always takes something HUGE to make us upgrade. It always happens in waves.

The ealy adopters jump ship just for shiny new graphics. Then there are those who buy somewhere after the first year when hot new software drops. Then there are those who upgrade around the 2 year mark when there is plenty of software and a significant price drop. Then of course when there are crates of games and super low prices at the end of a gen is when the last group enters.

However if there is no original incentive to move to let's say the next PS4 due to no significant improvement in graphics, gamers will be drawn to the 720 if there is a huge graphical jump. In the case both the PS4 and 720 are underpowered then the Wii U starts looking great. Competitive graphics and very cool touchscreen controller.

Anyway, thanks for being one of the few who understood the point I am making here.

[QUOTE="JohnF111"]Real gamers play games for other reasons than graphics, the fact you made 90% of your post based on a graphics arguments just shows how shallow your gaming experience is.ryangcnx-2

But he has a point, the only reason to "jump to the next platform" is to get upgraded hardware, if it's almost the same as the 360 and PS3, then whats the point of new hardware, just use the current consoles.

Thank you, I am glad some people understood the point I am making.