I don't root for Cell or Blu-Ray I root for games.

To be honest. I could say PS3 must not succeed (well initially anyways) so that we don't see another $600 console loaded with crap, hype and hoopla that we don't need. I'm kinda actually happy that the PS3 got off to its rough start. Otherwise high priced multimedia hubs might be what consoles eventually turn in to.

But now I'm glad Sony hit a rough start because they are now shaping up. They have gotten their price down, their games are coming, they are getting their act together ect. They are on their way to doing good.

I would never buy a console for the reasons you listed. Buy a new video card if that's how you feel. I buy consoles for games. That is what appeals to me about the PS3 is the games. Not Cell, Blu-Ray, Free Online which isn't as good ect.

Blackbond

if it succeeds the next consoles will cost $1000 and you'll have to wait 2 years before an AAAE, but hey you can watch movies in the new PurpleRay format.Ontain

I hope that answers the TC's question :)

/thread

[QUOTE="Redgarl"]

[QUOTE="colmusterd28"]congrats on your old tech and one decent game... I could care less what people buy.... I'm going to go play Mass Effect and AC, two games that are better than the entire Wii library put together...
Ninja-Vox

By old tech you mean xbox360? The one unable to handle Crysis...?

Not even PCs can handle Crysis. I bought a brand new rig for a little over two grand and it still cant max it out.

If this is the case, you either have been ripped off or are a noob of epic proportions (possibly even both). Anyone with even basic knowledge of computers could assemble a rig that could wipe the floor with Crysis for 2 grand+.

I noticed exactly what you said, and noticed that the attempt at linking the two is down right foolish (especially given the ease as which you can edit the site's banners). If anything, I now wonder if nsider deliberately editted the link themselves, but I'll assume they did not.

DerekLoffin

How exactly is linking past Sony's review fixing foolish? Back then their movie business were doing relatively well from a financial perspective, the same can't be said about their game division nowadays, which is far from rosey. Is it really that far-fetched? Unlikely maybe, but not impossible.

[QUOTE="_shadow99"]

[QUOTE="DerekLoffin"]You know, I thought Sony fans were pretty bad after the R&C review, but really, the N fans keep showing them up. Get over it guys, it's 1 review from a rather irrelevant reviewer. If Sony was going to pay someone off, they'd do it to someone with a bit more influence. DerekLoffin

Yes that's right, Sony would never stoop to such lengths to influence reviews concerning their own market interests...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Manning_(fictitious_writer)

and here

http://www.sony-sucks.com/crime/5-sony-bucks

Creating an imaginary reviewer for positive movies reviews, and paying a real reviewer off of a non-influenial site to pan one game are league parts buddy, and it just goes to show how paranoid you are.

LOL, You're putting words in my mouth here bud. Not once have I outright said this was a Sony conspiracy or anything like that. I'm actually not entirely convinced personally, but I have my suspicions, and who wouldn't be based on their track record. Maybe if you weren't so eager to try and slag me off, you might have noticed what I was trying to say.

[QUOTE="_shadow99"][QUOTE="nicenator"][QUOTE="_shadow99"]

Don't you find it strange that a review can be so unbalanced in terms of criticism, and ironically enough is sponsored by a large competitior? It should at least register some suspicion, unless you the world's greatest Sony Fanboy.

nicenator

you mean like the gamespot-cnet-microsoft link and the fact that there was a horribly unbalanced review and a low score for Ratchet& Clank? Hmmm... dont quite think people buy either of them theories.

This is all BS froma nintendo fansite. I cant believe people are taking this seriously.

A quote from the review posted by Ollivander:

Fans may claim that the graphics are good "for the Wii," but that argument quickly grows tired. There's clever art design on many of the planets Mario visits, but given the vastly superior quality of the graphics in a game like "Ratchet and Clank: Tools of Destruction," currently available for the PS3, "Galaxy" looks old fashioned and lifeles.

Direct reference to the PS3 and the recently released so called superior platformer R&C. Now this is on top of criticism of the power of the Wii console itself (funny that on software review). Open your eyes bud, and realise that Sony aren't the whiter than white company that you think.

No company in this console war is whiter than white, only an idiot would think that. There are things which can't be denied, such as the editing of the halo 3 wikipedia article. These cannot be denied because they are based in fact and are proven.

Other than speculation and conspiracy theory, there is no proof that Sony influenced that review at all, even if they did sponsor it. I'll admit im wrong when i see something more concrete than a nintendo fansite having a hissy fit over an insubstantial review.

As I posted earlier, it's not like Sony are new to this sort of unethical behaviour regarding reviews:

You know, I thought Sony fans were pretty bad after the R&C review, but really, the N fans keep showing them up. Get over it guys, it's 1 review from a rather irrelevant reviewer. If Sony was going to pay someone off, they'd do it to someone with a bit more influence. DerekLoffin

Yes that's right, Sony would never stoop to such lengths to influence reviews concerning their own market interests...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Manning_(fictitious_writer)

and here

http://www.sony-sucks.com/crime/5-sony-bucks

[QUOTE="_shadow99"]

Don't you find it strange that a review can be so unbalanced in terms of criticism, and ironically enough is sponsored by a large competitior? It should at least register some suspicion, unless you the world's greatest Sony Fanboy.

nicenator

you mean like the gamespot-cnet-microsoft link and the fact that there was a horribly unbalanced review and a low score for Ratchet& Clank? Hmmm... dont quite think people buy either of them theories.

This is all BS froma nintendo fansite. I cant believe people are taking this seriously.

A quote from the review posted by Ollivander:

Fans may claim that the graphics are good "for the Wii," but that argument quickly grows tired. There's clever art design on many of the planets Mario visits, but given the vastly superior quality of the graphics in a game like "Ratchet and Clank: Tools of Destruction," currently available for the PS3, "Galaxy" looks old fashioned and lifeles.

Direct reference to the PS3 and the recently released so called superior platformer R&C. Now this is on top of criticism of the power of the Wii console itself (funny that on software review). Open your eyes bud, and realise that Sony aren't the whiter than white company that you think.

even a six year old kid knows how to use photoshopACTfan

If you're implying that the Sony tag never existed then explain this comment (amongst others) on the variety site:

"Funny how my comment never made it up and the big "SPONSORED BY SONY" sticker at the top is now gone. Weird! Again, you should be ashamed... not only for posting false reviews to advertise for sony, but for trying to censor people and cover it up too." VARIETY REVIEW COMMENT