[QUOTE="ikillchildr3n"]I absolutely agree. As much as I love the stuff you mentioned I can see it really turning off casual gamers, who unarguably take up most of the market (not including myself).foxhound_fox

I would have agreed with you a couple of months ago but I am currently addicted to everything online gaming has to offer.. I used fell the exact same way, but the abilty to download anything from games to movies to additional content is a great feature. For old-school gamers like myself you have the Arcade which is full of games the way they used to be. Not to mention a lot of stuff is free on there and online gaming is extremely addicting. Like I said a couple of monthes ago I denounced the whole idea, but I have swallowed my words. My biggest complaint is consoles trying to "standardize" a DVD format for long term profits, thus making the gamers suffer in the short run.

high....def....meeedia..iz...greatest....thing...evar!!! now....must....slowly....shuffle....offf..to...eat...braaaaiiiiiiiiinzzzzzzzz!

Riverwolf007

Brains= Good

Consoles trying to be hi-def dvd players= Bad

They have ruined plug-n-play console gaming. Console gaming is taking far too much from the PC experience and not living up to its roots in "plug it in and play it." Now we have hard drives, installs, updates, downloadable content, online... ugh...foxhound_fox

I absolutely agree. As much as I love the stuff you mentioned I can see it really turning off casual gamers, who unarguably take up most of the market (not including myself).

As a gamer for a long time. I just got a PS3 and now i own all 3 systems. I actually enjoy the Wii alot, but it goes through spurts for me. Ill play for a few days alot then stop for a few weeks, but again with work and the fact people dont come over much anymore due to our ages, its party sytem ways gets less use. I find myself more a PC gamer nowadays, but i do enjoy 360 alot. I really like the PS3 alot since i got it. Just bought Uncharted and i find myself using it for movies and blu rays also.

I got it for MGS4 of course. 360 for me is still my gamign system this gen. Anyways with the Wii people need to realize, alot of non gamers are buying it. Sales are nice and but i know about say 8 people personally who are girls and a few guys that hate gaming, really just had a Nintendo (NES) growing up for Mario brothers or for the family system. Its the same with the Wii, alot of people are getting them just for Wii Sports only. One couple i know wanted a Wii just to use when they have company over for Wii Sports. Now for the hardcore gamers they hate that and its understandable. Gaming is about gaming.

As a nintendo fan since the 80's who still feels Super Nintendo is the greatest system of all time, i do enjoy the Wii, but then again i havent been that into Nintendo since the N64 days. I will always buy Nintendo just cause there part of gaming. I miss Sega though.

[/QUOTE/]

Don't get me wrong, I am NOT a Wii fanboy. Don't own one, don't plan on it. They just made the right decisions in focusing they're game console on gaming and a low price tag. It just bothers me that people can't see that gaming consoles are already expensive enough to gamers, nevermind throwing in a Blu-ray player and other trinkets that are not important to gamers.

[QUOTE="OsgoodSchlatter"][QUOTE="ikillchildr3n"]

[QUOTE="chathuranga"]You should take XBL for granted because you are paying for it. MikeE21286

$50 a year ooohhh. I can find that much money in my couch cushions. Peopl can spend $100 amonth on cell phone bills but $3 dollars a month is too much for an incredible Live experiance? Give me a break.

I don't care if it's $5 a year. It should be free. It's free on other consoles. On the PC as well. Ripoff.

You know, I think more people (seemingly like you) are mad at the principle that it's paid for as opposed to the actual fee. I mean I just bought a 12+1 month XBL card a month ago for $28 which I feel is totally reasonable. And I think that most people can afford the $50 w/o blinking an eye, they just don't want to have to.

Of couse I'd prefer it to be free, but say Microsoft offered a free version of Live that was sub-standard and a Live experience that is amazing, I would pay $3 a month for the better version, end of story. I also think if PS3 owners had a choice to have PSN comparable to XboxLIVE for $3 a month they would do it w/o blinking an eye.

[QUOTE="ikillchildr3n"][QUOTE="fluxorator"][QUOTE="ikillchildr3n"][QUOTE="fluxorator"][QUOTE="ikillchildr3n"][QUOTE="fluxorator"][QUOTE="ikillchildr3n"][QUOTE="fluxorator"]

Ok, so lets make things simple, if common sense prevailed
It would have been an entirely other division of Sony that developed and refined Blu-Ray.
So Sony Computer Entertainment focusing more on the PS3 would have done nothing.

Sony CARES about the next big media format because unless you haven't realised its a HUGE company based largely around it.

Tvs, Stereos, PS3.
Sony has always been a company that has pioneered (or tried to) new technologies in media.

Sony brought us the worlds first portable music player - The Walkman
Sony brought us and helped standardize (With the MSX) the 3.5 inch floppy disk.
Sony with Phillips brought the world CD and Discman.
Sony was also part of the DVD Consortium who brought us DVD and helped to standardize it with the PS2.
Now they bring us Blu-Ray.

Personally I see Sony as a company more oriented in pioneering new media rather than games. The game console market was a way for Sony to help push its formats
PlayStation pushed CD and SACD.
PlayStation 2 pushed DVD.
PlayStation Portable pushed UMD, but failed anyway.
PlayStation 3 pushed Blu-Ray.

So really Sony would love to make millions out of the PS3 but its real purpose was to get Blu-Ray standardized.

MS on the other entered into the gaming foray because well... It thought that it could make money.
It didn't, not with the Xbox at least. But a lot of efforts have been made to attempt to tie the Xbox to Microsoft's new 'Live' marketing scheme. (That's where the 'Live' in Xbox Live came from)
Live was a marketing scheme made my MS and the original XBOX was the first to use it. Now we see it everywhere:
Windows Live Messenger
Windows Live Mail
Microsoft Office Live (For Small Buisnesses)

Although Xbox is slowly moving away from Microsofts other divisions the reason why Xbox 360 only supported HD-DVD and not Blu-Ray is because Sony wanted to use a Java-based platform for their discs while HD-DVD makers wanted to use iHD (A proprietary format made my MS, later known as HDi)

So yes, big companies DO care about the next media format because they make money out of it by getting it right.
Either making the format and standardizing it (Sony) or from software royalties on the format (MicroSoft).

Gaming was/is just another way for them to get ahead.

fluxorator

Sonys main purpose of the PS3 is to standardize Blu-ray? Haha, thats exactly the problem! It's way too soon for Blu-ray to take off, they jumped the gun. You guys do realize the man who made this decision was immediatlty fired by Sony right? That's the problem for Sony, they're trying to sell an all-media console in a world of gaming consoles.

Are you daft?

Do you not realise the PS3 wasnt designed to ONLY appeal to gamers?

A....yeah, sonys not in the video game industry, what was I thinking? If it's not trying to appeal to gamers, who then?

Sorry? But ummm just because a company is in the video game industry doesn't mean its only interest is that?
Are you saying MS gave up on Vista as soon as they came up with the 360? The PS3 appeals to gamers, and 'Early Adopters' of HD Media. Even if it failed hugely as a console and only sold 2 million it would have served its other purpose.

No Microsoft did'nt give up on Vista just like Sony did'nt give up on CD/DVD players. They kept them seperate. By that logic Sony should realease a system with everything they manufacture for $2000? Would that sell? NO!

I know it wouldnt
But a gaming system with Blu-Ray would sell.
And it has.

C'mon man everyone knows the PS3 is'nt selling too well, don't pretend it is, because it completely devoids you're opinions.

Dude it sold well one month because of 1 big exclusive....their BIGGEST exclusive that will ever have I might add. It's not enough to make up for the poor marketing decisions they made on release.

[QUOTE="ikillchildr3n"][QUOTE="fluxorator"][QUOTE="ikillchildr3n"][QUOTE="fluxorator"][QUOTE="ikillchildr3n"][QUOTE="fluxorator"]

Ok, so lets make things simple, if common sense prevailed
It would have been an entirely other division of Sony that developed and refined Blu-Ray.
So Sony Computer Entertainment focusing more on the PS3 would have done nothing.

Sony CARES about the next big media format because unless you haven't realised its a HUGE company based largely around it.

Tvs, Stereos, PS3.
Sony has always been a company that has pioneered (or tried to) new technologies in media.

Sony brought us the worlds first portable music player - The Walkman
Sony brought us and helped standardize (With the MSX) the 3.5 inch floppy disk.
Sony with Phillips brought the world CD and Discman.
Sony was also part of the DVD Consortium who brought us DVD and helped to standardize it with the PS2.
Now they bring us Blu-Ray.

Personally I see Sony as a company more oriented in pioneering new media rather than games. The game console market was a way for Sony to help push its formats
PlayStation pushed CD and SACD.
PlayStation 2 pushed DVD.
PlayStation Portable pushed UMD, but failed anyway.
PlayStation 3 pushed Blu-Ray.

So really Sony would love to make millions out of the PS3 but its real purpose was to get Blu-Ray standardized.

MS on the other entered into the gaming foray because well... It thought that it could make money.
It didn't, not with the Xbox at least. But a lot of efforts have been made to attempt to tie the Xbox to Microsoft's new 'Live' marketing scheme. (That's where the 'Live' in Xbox Live came from)
Live was a marketing scheme made my MS and the original XBOX was the first to use it. Now we see it everywhere:
Windows Live Messenger
Windows Live Mail
Microsoft Office Live (For Small Buisnesses)

Although Xbox is slowly moving away from Microsofts other divisions the reason why Xbox 360 only supported HD-DVD and not Blu-Ray is because Sony wanted to use a Java-based platform for their discs while HD-DVD makers wanted to use iHD (A proprietary format made my MS, later known as HDi)

So yes, big companies DO care about the next media format because they make money out of it by getting it right.
Either making the format and standardizing it (Sony) or from software royalties on the format (MicroSoft).

Gaming was/is just another way for them to get ahead.

fluxorator

Sonys main purpose of the PS3 is to standardize Blu-ray? Haha, thats exactly the problem! It's way too soon for Blu-ray to take off, they jumped the gun. You guys do realize the man who made this decision was immediatlty fired by Sony right? That's the problem for Sony, they're trying to sell an all-media console in a world of gaming consoles.

Are you daft?

Do you not realise the PS3 wasnt designed to ONLY appeal to gamers?

A....yeah, sonys not in the video game industry, what was I thinking? If it's not trying to appeal to gamers, who then?

Sorry? But ummm just because a company is in the video game industry doesn't mean its only interest is that?
Are you saying MS gave up on Vista as soon as they came up with the 360? The PS3 appeals to gamers, and 'Early Adopters' of HD Media. Even if it failed hugely as a console and only sold 2 million it would have served its other purpose.

No Microsoft did'nt give up on Vista just like Sony did'nt give up on CD/DVD players. They kept them seperate. By that logic Sony should realease a system with everything they manufacture for $2000? Would that sell? NO!

I know it wouldnt
But a gaming system with Blu-Ray would sell.
And it has.

C'mon man everyone knows the PS3 is'nt selling too well, don't pretend it is, because it completely devoids you're opinions.

I used to frequent this board, not anymore.

Im interested though, what is the status between ps3 and 360. 360 hasn't had a great year, their games have been pretty mediocre. multiplat argument is dieing since they are getting more and more identical. both 360 and ps3 both got their first 10 on GTA4, PS3 got one more with MGS 4.

What was the reaction to the MGS 4 rating? How do the lems feel about the PS3's rising glory, the 360 is not selling the way it used to, ps3 sales are always rising, and i think PS3 have always beaten 360 in hardware sales for every month of 2008.

just wondering, are lems becoming more quiet, or are they coming to peace with the ps3?

i own both, but i hate lems, they're the most ignorant of all three fanboy types. (sorry for generalizing

-theCHUD-

It's already over, most people are were planning on buying nex gen consoles have already done so.

#1 Wii-Low price and fun games wins the console war PERIOD

#2 Xbox360- AMAZING console and live experience with some design flaws

#3 PS3- High price tag jaded long time fans

You should take XBL for granted because you are paying for it. chathuranga

$50 a year ooohhh. I can find that much money in my couch cushions. Peopl can spend $100 amonth on cell phone bills but $3 dollars a month is too much for an incredible Live experiance? Give me a break.

It's already over

#1 Wii

#2 360

#3 PS3